On 11/09/12 13:04, David Kastrup wrote:
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?
This is starting to sound a bit like SCORE's approach, where various different
aspects of the music (notes, phrasing, dynamics, ...) are described by separate,
parallel sequences: see,
http://www.ccarh.org/courses/253/handout/scoreinput/
Since you mentioned articulations: one of my personal bugbears with Lilypond has
been the case of an articulation that occurs part-way through a given note.
Consider e.g. the case of a half-note with a \turn that should occur on the
second beat of that half-note. It's something which (unless things have changed
in more recent versions, which I'm not aware of) is surprisingly difficult to
achieve _effectively_ in Lilypond, because the presence of the offset
articulation is not taken into account when calculating horizontal spacing.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
