- **Needs**: -->
- **Patch**: new --> needs_work
- **Type**: --> Enhancement
- **Comment**:
From Rietveld:
> On 2016/12/26 19:14:00, pkx166h wrote:
> On 2016/12/25 21:53:55, akobel wrote:
> > Bottom line: I withdraw both proposals.
>
> Can you then re-submit a new patch or delete the one(s) that are invalid?
Sorry, I'm a bit drawn up between my position as the Rietveld-proxy of Knut and
my own Alexander-role as a commenter.
I forwarded all patches by Knut, and I withdrew my two comments from #5 and the
one from the mailing list that Knut answered in #6.
The patch set is up to date.
> I don't know what has and what has not been tested for sure, as far as I can
> tell only patch set 1 has been tested which had a slew of warning messages
> during the reg test output that I don't know are expected, desirable or
> something else.
W.r.t. the regtest differences, as far as I (Alexander) can tell:
The warnings should be gone with Knut's parser modification in patch set 3.
The image differences are expected. A few short extenders are removed (due to
the different handling of collapse-length vs. the old minimum-length). The exact
setting of default collapse-length could be discussed, but IMHO the setting is
fine.
A few extenders appear that have not been written explicitly before, but that is
expected, too.
I guess for page-spacing-nonstaff-lines-independent.ly, the extender should be
forbidden, to have the intended effect of this regtest shown more pronounced.
However, I propose that we first discuss the patch itself, and settle on syntax
and choice of default parameters (collapse-length, force-length). AFAICS, once
this is done, we will need a pass over the entire documentation and regtests
anyway that removes all __ in lyrics - not for functionality, but to purge
outdated and possibly confusing syntax. That's basically a `sed -e 's/ __//g'`,
but we will have to do a quick review of at least the affected docs to check for
errors.
Also, a convert-ly rule still has to be written that will, e.g., also solve the
difference in the page-spacing-nonstaff-lines-independent.ly regtest.
-------
Patch Meister:
To that end I am setting this back to 'needs work', when something (or not)
changes then set the call back to new and then we can re-test the 'latest'
itteration of whatever is currently, or subsequently put, up there (on
Rietveld).
That way we all know where we are.
Thanks
James
---
** [issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders**
**Status:** Started
**Created:** Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
**Last Updated:** Sun Dec 25, 2016 02:03 PM UTC
**Owner:** Alexander Kobel
*Originally created by:* *anonymous
*Originally created by:*
[[email protected]](http://code.google.com/u/116549170756205086316/)
Actually, this is a content vs. presentation issue. The current approach has
lyric extenders ‘hardcoded’ within the lyricmode input, whereas often it
depends on layout whether I want an extender printed or not:
– In tight horizontal spacing, we might not need an extender, but when spacing
is stretched, it might become necessary. This can come through different
\(page/line\) breaking, parallel contexts present only in some editions \(part
vs. score\), Completion\_heads\_engraver \(mensural without
barlines/transcription with barlines\).
– Long syllables might not need an extender, where short syllables do.
– Often, all voices share the same text, but have extenders in different
places. If extenders need not be given explicitly, the lyricmode input code can
be reused much easier.
After all, the extenders don’t add any additional meaning, but only serve to
improve legibility in such cases where they do.
This would require:
– Recognising the end of a word by absence of a hyphen.
– Comparing printed length of the melisma notes vs. the syllable, likely after
line breaking. After all, extenders will never influence horizontal spacing.
They might, however, affect vertical spacing. \(unless we chose to omit \(or
shift\) the extender in that case?\)
– Personally, I think very short extenders shouldn’t be printed. There should
be some kind of threshold.
It’s also one of the usecases where a proper representation of a ‘lyric word’
would be helpful, along with [issue 2458](#2458).
Possibly related:
[issue 4098](#4098)
[Version
2.12](http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Aligning-lyrics-to-a-melody#Multiple-notes-to-one-syllable)
had this listed as a Known issue.
---
Sent from sourceforge.net because [email protected] is
subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is
a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Testlilyissues-auto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
