On 7/30/11 3:35 PM, "pkx1...@gmail.com" <pkx1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2011/07/30 16:15:39, c_sorensen_byu.edu wrote:
>
>
>> I think that the stop/start staves is currently exactly what it should
> do.
>> It stops the staff at a location, and starts the staff at the same
> location.
>> It reflects the commands that have been issued. If the staff is
> continuous,
>> there is no indication that the staff has been stopped and started.
>
>> Thanks,
>
>> Carl
>
> Err..why does there need to be an indication?
There probably doesn't. But neither should we avoid having an indication
and drive the staff lines to be continuous.
>
> The 'LP code' indicates it, I'm trying to think of a musical reason why
> this matters. Are we just splitting hairs here?
>
> 1) If squaring up the lines helps and resolves more fundamental issues
> why do we care if I can't tell the difference when I've issued a stop
> and start immediately one after the other?
Squaring up the lines doesn't help. Having the lines rounded works for
everything. The rounded lines were proposed as a portential error when we
do stop/start at the same time. I don't think they are an error.
>
> 2) Even if I did have a 'gap' between the lines why does it matter if
> they are rounded?
Because in real engraving, all the outside corners are rounded. It's a
characteristic of the tools used for engraving.
My point is only that this simultaneous start/stop should not be used as a
justification to eliminate rounding.
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
