On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:04 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> writes:
>
>> On 01/09/12 17:25, Graham Percival wrote:
>>> Continuing to brainstorm on the problem of it not being obvious to
>>> which note a particular \command refers to, what if we used:
>>>
>>> \postfix: c2 d\p is unchanged
>>> /prefix: for music functions like c2 /parenthesize d
>>> .neutral: for commands which aren't attached to notes, such
>>> as .clef or .times.
>>
>> Have to say that I think that there will be greater confusion down to
>> having 3 different ways to indicate a command, than there will be over
>> what entity the command applies to.
>>
>> After all, the general form of
>>
>> \command x
>>
>> is easy to understand -- \command applies to the entity x, or
>> alternatively to any group of entities contained in brackets { }. I
>> don't think it's confusing in general that x could be a note or some
>> other entity. (Are there good examples where it _is_ confusing?)
>>
>> The tricky thing is when you have something like,
>>
>> c'4 \p c' c' c'
>
> Ok, and now for something completely different. I think there has been
> one proposal to bring \[ \] in line with the post-event nature of [ ]
> and ( ), but the one thing I have been thinking about recently is
> whether we should not actually be going the other way round.
>
> Basically every construct that we would be tempted to use <> or s1*0 for
> occasionally is one that is not really attached to a note, but rather to
> a moment in time. You can put it in parallel music without changing
> results. Most articulations with a shorthand can be attached to
> individual notes in a chord: those are really intrinsically attached to
> the note before, and it makes sense keeping that even if per-chord
> articulations can be placed into parallel music. But things like ( ) \(
> \) [ ] \p \< \! \> all happen at a moment in time in a voice. Why is a
> tempo change a separate event, but a dynamic change isn't?
Specifically, I think it is because the tempo logically is an
interpretation property, and may have been just a \set property in
some earlier version. I'm not sure though.
> Another argument against it would be that all of the above constructs
> can benefit from a direction: ^[ is different from _[, and ^\p different
> from _p. Should the direction modifier be tied to the occurence of
> post-events? Valid question.
>
> And one valid answer certainly would be "this ship has sailed". But
> that argument would hold equally for the invasive changes introducing
> new syntactic differentiations.
I'd say this ship has sailed, but I've been saying so all along.
I'd strongly recommend implementing this and copying a few pages of
music before making any decisions. The everything postfix decision
was made after I had to copy music, and realized how jarring it was to
have to remember what goes where when copying music; I fear that your
proposal will require remembering more details.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
