> On 27 Apr 2015, at 00:18, Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > > > > Am 27.04.2015 um 01:12 schrieb Simon Albrecht: >> Am 26.04.2015 um 23:53 schrieb Michael Hendry: >>> >>>> On 26 Apr 2015, at 15:36, H. S. Teoh <hst...@quickfur.ath.cx >>>> <mailto:hst...@quickfur.ath.cx>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 10:23:26AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>>> Am I the only one who puts bar checks at *both* the beginning and end of >>>>>> a bar? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> | a4 b c d | >>>>>> >>>>>> | e f g a | >>>>> >>>>> You’re the only one I’ve ever heard of doing so. =) >>>>> Exactly ½ of your bar checks are redundant, of course. >>>> [...] >>>> >>>> I realize it's redundant, but I use it as a visual aid. :-) >>>> >>>> I like formatting my input in paragraphs of 4 or 8 bars each, and having >>>> a visual marker for both the start and end of a bar lets me easily tell >>>> where a bar starts / ends when its contents don't fit on a single line >>>> (or is more readable wrapped to multiple lines): >>>> >>>> | a4 a a a | >>>> | a4 a a a | >>>> | a4 -\tag #'no-partcombine -\f >>>> -\tag #'midi -\ff >>>> a a a | >>>> | a4 a a a | >>>> >>>> | b4 b b b | >>>> | b4 b b b | >>>> | b4 b b b | >>>> | b4 b b b | >>>> >>>> ... etc. >>>> >>>> In the 3rd bar above the trailing | lets me immediately see that the end >>>> of the bar is on the 3rd line, and that the previous two lines are >>>> incomplete, whereas if I only wrote | on one end of the bar, it would >>>> take more effort to scan with my eye to find the bar boundaries. >>> >>> I’m not convinced that you gain any benefit from using the bar check at the >>> beginning of the bar, if your’e going to put one at the end. >>> >>> Have a look at this... >>> >>> a4 a a a | >>> a4 a a a | >>> a4 -\tag #'no-partcombine -\f >>> -\tag #'midi -\ff >>> a a a | >>> a4 a a a | >>> >>> b4 b b b | >>> b4 b b b | >>> b4 b b b | >>> b4 b b b | >>> >>> …where the beginnings of the bars line up vertically, and any bars which >>> spill over on to the next line are indented. Does it lose anything from not >>> having leading bar checks? >> Yes: you can indent them manually, but if you use Frescobaldi’s >> auto-indenting tool (which is very recommendable) this info will get lost. >> >> Yours, Simon > > See > https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/573 > <https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/573> > > In that wish I asked if it is useful or just a personal use case. > So anybody who wants to use indented lines for such cases might add a comment > there (to "upvote" it).
I have added the following comment on GitHub: I agree that the loss of user-intended indentation is a problem with Frescobaldi's format feature, but I don't think this is a complete solution. As I understand it, the idea is that the %/ combination signifies that the _following_ line is to be given one extra ration of indentation, so code entered thus... a b c d b c d e %/ c d e f d e f g ...becomes... a b c d b c d e %/ c d e f d e f g ...with the fourth line dropping back to Frescobaldi's default indentation. This means that every line that is to be indented will have to be preceded by %/, and that there is no way of forcing double indentation. How would you propose switching off the %// indentation if it isn't automatically switched off in following bars? Michael > > Urs > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user