m...@mikesolomon.org wrote Monday, March 25, 2013 7:29 AM
> On 25 mars 2013, at 07:10, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
>
>> Conceptually, of course, there *are* two pieces. The other piece is
>> probably at the other end of the repeat. The automatic behavior is quite
>> good, so fortunately we will rarely need to look up whatever name the
>> committee approves for the command to make a broken slur.
>
> It'd be a shame for this to get stuck in the pipes because we can't figure
> out a good name. I am indifferent and I don't mind \broken or whatever
> really.
Yes, let's move this on now.
If we want the name to apply to the slur as a whole then \broken or \split look
good. I'd be happy with that.
But as the function is being applied to an end point of a slur, not the whole
slur, I actually prefer "\free(" and "\free)", to be vocalised as "free opening
slur" and "free closing slur", or possibly \floating.
But I'll accept anything now to move this on :)
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
