Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> writes: > Eluze <eluzew <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> maybe this could be merged into >> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2830 > > That issue is about fingering and string numbers inside chord brackets <>, > documenting how the order of input works together with script-priority > > <d-1\2>8( <e-\thumb\1> <d-1\2>) > <b-2\1>( <a-\thumb\2> <g-1\3>) > > articulations coming earlier in the input are printed closer to the > note.
New_fingering_engraver > The irregular behavior Oliver sees occurs when there is no <> chord > indication. Fingering_engraver > I think it is a separate bug, but I am confused right now. There are > two or three separate pieces of code setting fingerings and scripts > according to different combinations of rules, some similar to what > Nick posted just now. (Too many people write new code without looking > at the existing code first.) Outside of chords, articulations with an event listener are funneled off rhythmic events and just announced at the same time. Inside of chords, they remain stuck on the individual rhythmic events which are then passed to the New_fingering_engraver in some manner. > Then there is the problem \thumb is different than other fingerings... We should likely try doing something about that, though. > It seems if we give Fingerings and StringNumbers different > script-priorities by default, as David suggested, it would render a > lot of this (buggy) code moot. I am not sure this would cure the double-engraver scenario, but it might make some sense trying to at least make both engravers use the same kind of tie-breaking in comparable situations. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
