2009/5/23 Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de>: > Neil Puttock schrieb: >> Since none of this works properly (I suspect it will require more than >> Scheme hacking to get everything working), I don't think it's suitable >> for inclusion. >> >> > > Hm, I guess you're right - but as a compromise, how about letting the > \clearTabTieBreaks as a default, because it is working most of the time, and > when someone needs a more sophisticated tab staff, he has to write a > separate > score for the tablature? > > I would propose to rename it as > > #(define (tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers grob) > (let* ((tied-fret-nr (ly:spanner-bound grob RIGHT))) > (ly:grob-set-property! tied-fret-nr 'transparent #t))) > > make it default by > > \override Tie #'after-line-breaking = #tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers > > and use this as a kind of starting point for future improvements?
Oh go on then. As long as you promise to leave out \markTabTieBreaks. :) >> I'm concerned about the amount of duplication here; this basically >> repeats all the code in \tabNumbersOnly, which is really something we >> should try to avoid in included files. >> > > But how to avoid this? One possibility would be to just get rid of the > \tabNumbersOnly, because I don't think that tablatures with and > without stems will ever be mixed together in a file, and when someone wants > to do so, he can \override everything manually. I think that's the only option available, since there's no way of inserting identifiers into a context definition. Regards, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
