On 20 mars 2013, at 18:25, "m...@mikesolomon.org" <m...@mikesolomon.org> wrote:
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 20 mars 2013, at 16:38, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Anything like phantom, fake and co doesn't sit right in English. Granted, the
> majority of LilyPond users are non-native speakers, so this probably doesn't
> make have the same impact. But, given that English is the language of
> lilypond, I think it's important to pay heed to the underlying sense of
> words. 'faux' in French, which means fake, would feel more suitable here, as
> it also means false and can apply to real things. But LilyPond is not in
> French.
>
> Some other English ideas:
>
> unhinged
> unbridled
> unanchored
> loose
> split
> chopped
> frayed
>
> Cheers,
> MS
Even better, how about:
\anderston
The Anderston pedestrian bridge is a real life example of what we're talking
about.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Bridge_to_Nowhere#section_3
I'm totally for this - it would be fantastic if people called these things
"Anderston slurs" or "Anderston beams."
Why not be poetic? There are plenty of musical terms that use
metaphors/allusions.
So that's my new vote...
Cheers,
MS_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
