On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 10:38:30 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 20:56:54 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > On Fri, 06 Sep 2002 17:54:27 Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fingerings should be done more automatically anyway; > > > > > > > > What does that mean? > > > > > > I mean the formatting. The business of putting fingerings left, right, > > > up and down of the notes should really be done by Lilypond-- that's > > > why I don't like the idea of extra syntax for more manual formatting > > > options. > > > > You "should" do it so you see to it that it can't be > > done until that day, which is not going to be soon, > > that you can do it? How does making lilypond less > > usable make it better? > > It probably saves you some (maybe a lot) of typing when you can use ;4 > and \4 for left and right for the moment (as opposed to using > #'extra-offset) , but when I do that, I lose the ability of of using ; > and \ for other useful things, and --much more important-- it produces > a compatibility headache. > > Developing lilypond is hard enough when I only have to maintain > compatibility with the ideas that I didn't realize were clumsy when I > introduced them. Introducing or allowing things that seem clumsy at > first sight seems unwise. I've done it in the past (cf. lyric > alignment code, text markup, big parts of the ancient notation, etc.), > but I've always regretted doing so, because at some point, I have to > dive into that not-so-solid code to maintain it.
The hardest thing is the lack of ability to pass values to
the likes of #'extra-offset, which makes the user have to
have a different definition for each value. Of course I can
do that now, but I'd rather do it in lilypond. Is it particularly
impossible to adopt or adapt the LaTeX \newcommand to make
that possible? With that you can pass multiple parameters to a
command (or combination of commands?) I've been doing
a whopper of a lilypond-book
file and I'll miss \newcommand going back to ly2dvi. If it
is usable now to any extent with ly2dvi then that
deserves to be documented.
As for fingering, the traditional thing is to have the finger
close to the notehead to which it refers, using whatever
whitespace is available, including that on the staff.
Engravers made many mistakes in
placement. There is no prospect of doing it automatically
in the old way ever.
The worst practice is to have a finger follow a note
in the notation. Fortunately, that doesn't quite happen.
That's as bad as having an accidental follow a note.
Attached is an excerpt which demonstrates the necessity
of being able to move the finger indication close
to the notehead. Works under 1.4.13. The stem length
depends on the position on the staff now, (Cool!) so you
could move the finger indication closer to the
notehead when the notehead is on or below the bottom
line of the staff and the stem is down, and the
inverse of course. That would eliminate the problem
in the vast majority of cases.
It is incorrect to tuck in rests that way when the
stem is down, because a simultaneous rest *must* precede the
stem. I don't think engravers would have liked tucking
fingering much for a lower voice, but they would have *hated*
having the fingering all over the place the way it is
in the second page, and it would be centered nicely under
the note, and everyone will love it.
I see you changed \transpose to make it work like
\clef. Good job!
------------------------------------------------------------
Information is not knowledge. Belief is not truth.
Indoctrination is not teaching. Tradition is not evidence.
David Raleigh Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
excerpt.lytex
Description: Binary data
