Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
2008/2/26, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
These are both valid:
{
c'2-\accent
c'2\accent
}
Should we keep the - version in the docs at all? Does it really add
anything (especially since most people use the plain \ version) ?
It's necessary for
2008/2/26, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These are both valid:
> {
> c'2-\accent
> c'2\accent
> }
>
> Should we keep the - version in the docs at all? Does it really add
> anything (especially since most people use the plain \ version) ?
It's necessary for some constructions, wit
Graham Percival wrote:
That's not specific to articulations, though. For example,
dynamics are (normally) always below notes, while slurs depend
on the stem direction. I've added a note to mention that in NR
3.whatever.
Yes and no! There are two aspects that are specific to articulations:
That's not specific to articulations, though. For example,
dynamics are (normally) always below notes, while slurs depend
on the stem direction. I've added a note to mention that in NR
3.whatever.
Patrick: it's worth adding a pointer to scm/script.scm, though.
I'd do it in the same paragraph as
What I talked about were the default rules that are used in Lilypond.
As soon as you specify \voiceOne / \voiceTwo (or specify them implicitly
using the <<{...} \\ {...} >> construct, then these default rules are
overridden
and instead all articulations are placed above (for \voiceOne) or below
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's one particular aspect of controlling directions that's specific for
> articulations, namely that each separate articulation has its own rule for
> the default direction. Some articulations, like \fermata, are always
> above the stave,
...excep
There's one particular aspect of controlling directions that's specific for
articulations, namely that each separate articulation has its own rule for
the default direction. Some articulations, like \fermata, are always
above the
stave, some others like \marcato are always on the opposite directi
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:08:09 -0800
"Patrick McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting! However, as this example indicates, it's not
> > specific to articulations. We'll add info to LM 3 and
> > NR 3 a
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting! However, as this example indicates, it's not
> specific to articulations. We'll add info to LM 3 and
> NR 3 about this.
>
> Since there's nothing specific about articulations here, we'll
> remove it f
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:39:21 -0500
Bryan Stanbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> >
> > Should we keep the - version in the docs at all? Does it really add
> > anything (especially since most people use the plain \ version) ?
>
> We might want to keep the -\ version, bec
These are both valid:
{
c'2-\accent
c'2\accent
}
Should we keep the - version in the docs at all? Does it really add
anything (especially since most people use the plain \ version) ?
It might be good as an introduction to ^ and _, but OTOH we
can do ^ and _ with items that don't have any -,
11 matches
Mail list logo
