Joseph Wakeling <joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net> writes: > On 08/25/2011 06:17 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Honestly? Heaps of praise coupled with a diffuse "improvements might >> make things worse" may be an _elevating_ way of looking at Lilypond, but >> I consider this even less helpful than pinpointing a weakness. > > I don't like "X sucks" comments -- better to understand _why_ things are > one way or another, especially when (like Lilypond) there are good > reasons. For what it's worth, where "improvements might make things > worse" are concerned I was thinking about Lilypond getting a GUI > frontend -- easy to tweak -- but being constrained in future development > by what could be done in the GUI rather than what could be done with > text input. > > But if you want examples of weaknesses: > > * Placement of ornaments that do not fall directly over a notehead. > It's absolutely typical in classical music to have e.g. a turn > start on the second beat of a 2nd note, but this is very difficult > to implement well in Lilypond, as it involves both tweaking the > horizontal offset of the ornament itself _and_ increasing the > horizontal space assigned to the 2nd note. > > * Placement of dynamic marks that do not fall directly under a > notehead.
c1*1/4 s1*3/4\p > * _Easy_ attachment of extra descriptive text to dynamic marks > (pp subito, f ma non troppo, molto p), and intelligent placement of > those dynamic marks. Something like \f{rtext="ma non troppo"}, or > \p{ltext="molto"}. The "Expressive marks" snippets contain "Horizontally aligning custom dynamics". Should be a good start. > * Placement of hairpins that do not begin or end directly on a > notehead. There needs to be an _easy_ way to indicate > "This crescendo starts on this note but 1 quarter-note in" c1*1/4 s1*3/4\< > (e.g. \<{delay=4}, \<{delay=2*8}) and possibly also "This crescendo > continues for 7 eighth notes" instead of ending on the next \! or > dynamic mark (e.g. \<{length=7*8} [no delayed start] or > \<{delay=4,length=7*8} [1/4-note delayed start). c1*1/4 s1*5/8\< s1*1/8\! > * More generally, a simple "functional" notation that allows you to > override common properties of musical objects, instead of the > \once \override notation. Some of what I've suggested above is > heading in that direction, but I'm sure there's a better notation. I have work stashed away while working on the property stuff that would make #{ ... #} inside of music functions useful for a lot more than just sequential music, greatly simplifying turning a lot of stuff into music functions. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user