On 20 March 2013 15:01, m...@mikesolomon.org <m...@mikesolomon.org> wrote:
>
> I don't completely follow what you're saying above - could you say it
> another way?
I don't follow this whole developers discussion about choosing the best
command name for the users.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. After this has been implemented, slurs across repeats would be
actually printed (broken, up to/from the bar line), with the part
printed looking like as if the repeat was unfolded.
2. This would be the default behavior (great, huge improvement!).
3. This behavior could be prevented (I can't understand why people
would choose this, but well) by setting the property slurOverRepeat=##f
4. "\broken" (or so) would be manual a command to print such "invisible
start/end of slur", anywhere in the piece (for which purpose??).
Shouldn't you need a "starting pitch"?
The shape of a slur c( f) is different from slur g( f) , so should be
the broken version. If so, why not a command like LaTeX \phantom?
\phantom { c( } f) d( \phantom { c( }
Cheers,
Xavier
--
Xavier Scheuer <x.sche...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
