Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes:
> Am 06.03.2013 02:59, schrieb Thomas Morley:
>> 2013/3/5 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I tried the (relatively) new bar line interface:
>>> \version "2.17.12"
>>> \defineBarLine "|:" #'(":||" "" "|:") % a)
>>> \defineBarLine ":||" #'(":.." "" " ||") % b)
>>>
>>> \new StaffGroup <<
>>> \new Staff { a1 \bar "|:" a \bar "|:" }
>>> \new Staff { f'1 f' }
>>> I have four questions:
>>>
>>> 1) When using definition in line a), LilyPond complains about a missing
>>> span bar line style. Should I add line b) to define it?
>>>
>>> 2) Is the space in " ||" right in line b) to align the span bar lines
>>> properly?
>> Hi Joram,
>>
>> I'll try to answer your first two questions while demonstrating a step
>> by step example.
> Hi Harm,
>
> kudos for this detailed explanation! I wonder if the documentation about
> bar lines should be enhanced in this way, or is there a place where this
> information can be stored and made available for all users?
It is orthogonal to us making \bar "|:" and \bar ":|" well-defined by
letting : automatically imply a thick bar since nothing else makes
sense.
We don't want to point users having a simple understandable problem to
an explanation for a large problem complex, no matter how good that
explanation is.
We are using things like "|:" and ":|" because they are semi-WYSIWYG and
thus intuitive. If people write repeats in non-formal ASCII lyrics,
like "we'll see this problem, |: time and again :|", they will not write
.|: or :|. since only typesetters realize that repeat signs at the end
of a piece are indistinguishable from normal repeat signs.
Do we really need to give _every_ _single_ person on the user list the
same advice, again and again?
While it is quite more efficient to condense it in the manual and point
to that, pointing every single user to this manual section is going to
get old as well.
After telling enough people "the problem is actually simple, it is just
you who are incompetent", maybe we should think twice about what we have
to gain by making LilyPond users feel incompetent.
I don't see a compelling technical reason not to cater to this
particular naive expectation.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
