> 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
