If that could help for understanding this behaviour, in the regression
tests, hairpin-barline-break.ly says:
"If a hairpin ends on the first note of a new staff, we do not print that
ending. But on the previous line, this hairpin should not be left open, and
should end at the bar line."
This probably comes from a dedicated discussion about an hairpin / break
issue during the years 2010/2011...
Cheers,
Pierre
2018-07-26 7:11 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>:
> No, I can't but I can give you a workaround:
>
> \version "2.19.81"
>
> \paper {
> ragged-bottom = ##t
> ragged-right = ##t
> }
>
> \relative c'' {
> c1
> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f d1\<
> e1\!
> }
>
> \relative c'' {
> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f
> c1 c c c c c c c c c
> d1-\tweak to-barline ##f -\tweak after-line-breaking ##t \<
> e1\!
> }
>
> \relative c'' {
> c1
> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f
> \override Hairpin.after-line-breaking = ##t
> d1\<
> \break
> e1\!
> }
>
> HTH, Cheers,
> Pierre
>
> 2018-07-26 3:59 GMT+02:00 Patrick Karl <jpk...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 7/20/18 11:32 PM, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
>>
>> Hi Patrick,
>> Try:
>>
>> \version "2.19.81"
>>
>> {
>> \time 1/4
>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f
>> a8\> b
>> c'4\!
>> }
>> {
>> \time 1/4
>> a8-\tweak to-barline ##f \> b
>> c'4\!
>> }
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Pierre
>>
>>
>> I appreciate the advice. Can you explain why a break, whether automatic
>> or forced, seems to completely negate the to-barline setting:
>>
>> \version "2.19.81"
>>
>> \paper {
>> ragged-bottom = ##t
>> ragged-right = ##t
>> }
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>> c1
>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f d1\<
>> e1\!
>> }
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>> c1 c c c c c c c c c
>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f d1\<
>> e1\!
>> }
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>> c1
>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f d1\<
>> \break
>> e1\!
>> }
>>
>> As you can see (I hope), the first example works as expected, but the
>> next two examples fail in that the hairpin stops at the barline. I have
>> read the section of the Notation RM dealing with the to-barline property of
>> Spanners (5.4.6), and haven't seen an explanation of this behavior.
>>
>>
>> 2018-07-21 5:08 GMT+02:00 Patrick Karl <jpk...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Section 5.4.6 of the Notation RM states:
>>> *The to-barline property*
>>>
>>> The second useful property of the spanner-interface is to-barline. By
>>> default this is true, causing hairpins and other spanners which are
>>> terminated on the first note of a measure to end instead on the immediately
>>> preceding bar line. If set to false, the spanner will extend beyond the bar
>>> line and end on the note itself
>>>
>>> I have a couple of questions about this section. The first is, why
>>> would the default setting for to-barface be true? If I wanted my spanner
>>> to end on the immediately preceding bar line, I could easily set "\!" after
>>> the last note of the preceding bar.
>>>
>>>
>>> The second question has to do with the following two examples:
>>>
>>> \version "2.19.81"
>>> { \time 1/4
>>> a8\> b
>>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##f
>>> c'4\! }
>>> { \time 1/4
>>> a8\> b
>>> \override Hairpin.to-barline = ##t
>>> c'4\! }
>>>
>>>
>>> Both examples give identical output, i.e., the hairpin ends before the
>>> first barline, not extending to the first note of the second bar no matter
>>> what the setting of Hairpin.to-barline is.
>>>
>>>
>>> How can I extend the hairpin to the end of the note in the 2nd bar?
>>>
>>> Please answer both questions. Why would the default be so
>>> counter-intuitive?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> lilypond-user mailing list
>>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
