> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Oct 3 09:34:56 2007 > > Something like "melisma line" would be more unambiguous... > > Yes, it would be unambiguous ... but should we take that to its logical > conclusion, and make up new terms for each new task that we assign to our > simple "extender line"? Or should we simply say (paraphrasing Dr. Byrd): > > 'Extender line: a line of arbitrary length that extends some text, used in > many contexts. For specific uses: > * In vocal music, see "Melisma" > * In figured bass, see "Figured bass extender" > * In string music, see "String indicator" > * In etc. ..., see etc. ....'
Really, I shouldn't have replied to a thread which I caught in the middle... I see you have given quite an amount of thought to it. I was not seeing that you meant to use the term in its full genericity. I quite like the idea of a generic extender line applyable to technique indications, expression indications, perhaps also to say "play these notes repeatedly until that point"... Really, a music notation program must be just as flexible as a drawing program, to allow people to print whatever they want independently of the fact that those who did the program understand/predicted the meaning of a particular sign (that's the opposite of a MIDI sequencer, which must understand everything). So, extender line for the generic concept is great. You have my vote. Miguel Ramos (Sorry, I messed my mail address, I use specific addresses for lists, in this case, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
