Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >> I think any further proposals should _definitely_ explain how to write >> the given example >> >> g f e d( >> \repeat { c d) e f ( } >> \alternatives { >> { g) a b( a \fake) } >> { \fake( e) d c( d \fake) } >> { \fake( d) c d( e } >> } >> d c) d c > > Hmm. It's not clear to me why lilypond can't handle this > automatically: > > g f e d( > \repeat { c d) e f( } > \alternatives { > { g) a b( a } > { e) d c( d } > { d) c d( e } > } > d c) d c
The example actually is a bit too orthogonal to illustrate all pertinent points. Here are some variations: g f e d( \fake) \repeat { \fake( c d) e f ( } [...] Now the first slur will _not_ lead into the repeat unbroken, a valid variation. g f e d( \fake) \repeat { \fake\single\slurDotted( c d) e f [...] This is typical for lyrics where there is a melisma leading into the first repeat but not into all subsequent ones. If there is no melisma into the first repeat but in some alternative, you'd write instead g f e d \repeat { \fake\single\slurDotted( c d) e f } [...] Now since \unfoldRepeats would remove all \fake slurs, the result would be fine here. The opposite case, where a repeat leads into only some alternatives, would be \repeat { c d e f\single\slurDotted( \fake) } which works less well. One possible way around that would be to combine tweaks from start and end slur events, leading to \repeat { c d e f( \fake\single\slurDotted) } which is still not good enough for unfolding unless one starts slur-less alternatives with something like \fake( d\single\omit). Which would not work for audio so for that case we probably really need an explicit slur killing command. Here is another example: g f e d( \repeat { c d) e f } \alternatives { { g a b( a \fake) } { e d c( d \fake) } { d c d e } } d c d c The suggested automatism would turn this into g f e d( \repeat { c d) e f } \alternatives { { g a b( a } { e d c( d } { d c d e } } d c d c which makes for a lot of visually unpaired opening parens in the source code. Mind you: this is pretty much what I have asked for myself. I just have my doubts that an automatism for some cases will not make it harder for other cases and will leave the music source in a less convincing state. I have to admit that leaving _all_ automatism aside does not seem warranted: I can think of no case where inconsistent slur orientation across visual jumps would be desirable. > It seems that I've *completely* misunderstood the syntax we were > talking about, so thanks for this detailed example. However, I still > don't like \fake. Looking at your syntax about, the corresponding TeX > name would be \phantom which I do now suggest. Well, TeX uses \phantom for something which has dimensions but no visual appearance, whereas we would use it for something which has visual appearance (before unfolding) but no sound. But TeX is separate enough from LilyPond that I actually like \phantom rather well for this purpose. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel