On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:58 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > > > 2013/5/10 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > >> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes: > >>> I'm wondering whether we should advertise \shape more. It's > >>> tremendously helpful, and yet despite it had been added ~1 year ago > >>> (IIRC) many users don't know about it. > >> > >> I'm somewhat dubious about "tremendously helpful" as it defeats > >> automated typesetting. > > > > I'm 100% for automated typesetting: it's my dream and the very reason > > why i'm using LilyPond. > > However, my experience (particularly with Fried project) shows that > > with regard to slurs and ties, LilyPond is very far from automated > > typesetting. If you want publication quality, you _have_ to tweak the > > output quite heavily - would you rather do this via setting > > control-points directly? Actually, \shape is quite close to the > > spirit of automated engraving, because if the layout changes slightly, > > \shape modifications usually "adapt" and still produce good results. > > Not if there is a change in line/page breaking. >
Sure. One enhancement would be to warn the user about such layout changes (issue 2893). At any rate, the command is most useful for tweaking curves when the layout is settled. > > > Even with \shape, correcting ties and slurs is still the most > > time-consuming task in preparing the Fried material for publication. > > Quite frankly, if we didn't have \shape, i'd say that LilyPond was > > incapable of handling Fried project :( > > > >> And "had been added ~1 year ago" is a short time. > > > > Well, to look from a different perspective: if there were any pieces i > > had engraved without using \shape (since it was added to LilyPond), > > they most probably didn't contain any slurs at all. > > Or the post processing would have been done using inkscape or some > similar tool... Yes, but I would certainly prefer to do as much as possible with LilyPond. > At any rate, \shape is no substitute to fixing > LilyPond's typesetting of slurs. Of course. However, I can't envision that day in LilyPond's quest for quantification of the subjective when a default slur shape will satisfy everybody. There will always be a need to change things, position objects to a user's preference. Every LilyPond score I've produced has been heavily overridden, however serviceable the default is. > It's a stop-gap measure tied into a > particular version of LilyPond and loosely tied into a particular > version of a score. Which may sometimes cause less work than fixups > firmly tied into a particular printing of the score (which Inkscape > touchup work is). But it is still something you can't depend on. > Again, I would prefer to do as much as possible with LilyPond, and I doubt I'm alone here. --David
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
