This is exactly my point. All of the suggested solutions to maintain consistent vertical ordering require using a case-by-case override or markup function. There is no way to create a global setting to force Lilypond to respect text vertical ordering.
MOST of the time, Lilypond respects the order of TextScripts specified in the music expression: ^"one"^"two" will print "two" above "one." Since Lilypond can't tell whether text is an instrument shift, number of players, technique, etc., the correct order can only be specified by the human engraver. On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Mason Hock <ma...@masonhock.com> wrote: > On 02/18, Saul Tobin wrote: > > This is exactly the sort of situation I'm talking about. You're correct > > that the order doesn't change the meaning, just as changing the vertical > > order of instruments in the score doesn't change the scoring. But there > is > > a strong convention of how to order different types of text instructions > > Indeed, but as layout these decisions are not part of the musical > information. When you include these instuctions in an include file > containing the musical content of a player's part, you are only indicating > that and when these instructions apply. If the order in which you enter the > instructions were to affect their placement in the score, one of Lilypond's > greatest strengths, the ability to separate layout from content, would be > compromised. Any override to Lilypond's behavior that applies to the entire > score is better off done globally, in a separate file from those containing > content. > > Mason > > > (who plays first, then instrument changes, then technical instructions, > > then style of expression), similar to the conventions for score order. > You > > don't want a "solo" indication buried in between three technical > > instructions, because it could easily get missed by sightreading players. > > Also, in a full score if several staves have the same three text > > instructions, it is more readable if they are in the same vertical order > > for each staff. > > > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Mason Hock <ma...@masonhock.com> wrote: > > > > > > Indeed. However, the vertical order of expressions is part of > content, > > > not > > > > a purely graphical layout issue. > > > > > > With the composer:content::editor:layout, vertical order of > expressions > > > seems like layout for most cases that come to mind. A composer might > decide > > > to have a violist switch to arco and ponticello simultaneously. The > > > vertical order of those expressions does not affect what the violist > does. > > > I struggle to think of a situation in which the vertical order of > > > simultaneous instructions would change the meaning of those > instructions. > > > >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
