On 2010/11/04 08:31:30, marc wrote:
No, I don't think we should it do more complicated that necessary.
Perhaps the name 'tie-follow is misleading, but the engraver (before
you
left out the slur and glissando bits) did the right job - marking
exactly
the tab-note-heads that have to be treated specially.
If we mark *every* tied-to note, we have to mark *every* start of a
slur
and *every* start
of a glissando as well and check for the appearance of (and
('tie-follow
(or ( 'slur-start 'gliss-start)))),
which is overkill - just let the engraver take the decision, raise a
flag, and the callbacks do their job.
But right now, the callbacks are fighting over the notes -- and I don't
think that's right. In order to work correctly, we need to know the
order in which the callbacks are called.
I've got an algorithm that I think is clearer and simplifies the
callbacks, but I haven't been able to fully test it yet because I can't
get the C++ engraver to work right in terms of checking equality.
I'll post a patch for comments.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/2723043/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
