Comment #12 on issue 3363 by [email protected]: Scripts misplaced with
cross-staff slurs
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3363
Well, "defining terms" is not really useful if the underlying concepts
don't match realities. We have pure/unpure as independent/dependent from
linebreaking, and crossstaff as we-can't-really-decide from linebreaking.
But something like a staccato dot could not care less about linebreaking:
it depends on the material it references. We are not doing ourselves in
expressing every dependency in terms of before/after linebreaking. In
particular since there are things like linebreaking depending on
accidentals, and accidentals can depend on linebreaking again (a tied note
gets a repeat accidental only after a line break).
This won't help us for this issue, but it might make sense for things like
staccato dots to inherit their cross-staff property from their x-parent
(assuming that the actual note is marked as cross-staff). Do we really
need to know this for staccato dots?
--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings
