On 20 mars 2013, at 07:50, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> "m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes:
>
>> On 20 mars 2013, at 06:07, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> "m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> Trying to put myself in the shoes of the average user, \fake would
>>>> not mean a function that uses a fake post event, but rather a
>>>> function that produces a \fake something. I would think "this makes
>>>> a fake slur", which is not the case.
>>>
>>> It makes a fake slur start or end.
>>
>> The word "fake" still doesn't sit right with me... There is nothing
>> fake about the slur:
>>
>> { a \fake ( b c d ) }
>
> Mike, that code does not even make any sense.
If one is quoting another instrument starting in mid-measure, why wouldn't that
make sense?
> You would not place a
> fake slur start or fake slur end anywhere except right after or right
> before a visual discontinuity from a repeat construct. You probably did
> not understand what I wrote, probably because "it makes a fake slur
> start or end" is not grammatically clear. I mean "It makes a fake
> slur-start or a fake slur-end" by that.
Ok, I'm getting what you're saying. I still don't like "fake" just because the
begin and start are still real. They are just offset.
>
>> It is real.
>
> The slur is real. The end point isn't.
What is not real about the endpoint? If I jump on a train in between two
stations, it is still a real getting-on-board.
>
>> The function, to me, should describe an attribute of the slur.
>
> But it doesn't. It describes an attribute of its visual start or end
> point.
This is a good idea.
>
>> The slur looks detached and broken, but not fake.
>
> But the attachment is fake, and the slur will get properly attached to
> the proper end points when repeats are unfolded.
Perhaps non-musical?
>
>> There are commands like slurDashed, slurDotted, etc. that describe
>> what the output will be like.
>
> And the output will be like that even when repeats are unfolded.
>
>> I think it's important to stay in that logic. If we're going to use
>> this for many spanners, my vote would be \broken.
>
> But it is not the slur that is "broken" but rather its visual connection
> to _one_ or even _two_ of its end points. You can perfectly well and
> meaningfully have an alternative written as
>
> { \fake\( c d e f \fake\) }
>
> and when unfolding, the phrasing slur will start at some point preceding
> this passage and end at some point succeeding it.
>
>> The slurs look broken,
>
> If you want to, but the whole of
> ( \broken) \broken( \broken) \broken( )
> is just _one_ slur broken into three pieces, not one whole slur and two
> broken slurs. That logic is more apparent with writing
> ( \fake) \fake( \fake) \fake( )
>
> The breaking occurs at artificial points not related to the music
> function of the slur, and it will get dissolved when unfolding repeats.
>
> The break of the slur does not occur where \broken is written, but
> rather it is at a visual discontinuity logically connected with matching
> pairs of \broken) ... \broken(. Your above example suggests that this
> relation does not seem clear to you.
>
>> and things like beams and hairpins will definitely look broken as well
>> if we split them using the same sort of algorithm.
>
> Sure, and again the split will be between matching pairs of artificial
> end and start points that are not logical end and start points and will
> disappear when repeats are unfolded and the broken construct gets joined
> visually as well as logically.
>
>> To me, something can look "broken" and this designation does not have
>> any bearing on if all the pieces are there or not. It is a quality of
>> the object.
>
> No, it is a quality of the respective visual (but not logical) start and
> end points. And I would prefer a naming choice that makes it easier for
> people to understand what they are doing. You are making a strong case
> for this being hard enough to make it prudent to avoid fallacious
> naming.
I completely agree. It's just that "fake" in English means false or
counterfeit. It needs another word, just don't know what yet. unchained? free?
Cheers,
MS
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
