Philip Thomas <philip.tho...@bluewin.ch> writes: > In the particular context I was dealing > with, I ended up wrestling with "define-markup-command" and losing the > match badly. But I still find "<>" to have more > intuitive emotional and syntactic appeal than "s1*0". A more neutral > symbol might be nice though.
Both <> and s1*0 are as neutral as it gets: they have not been created for the purpose they serve. The basic question "what entities can receive articulations" is similar to the question "what entities can form ligatures" for word processors and/or TeX. Historically, the question "does x have the post-event nature" has been mostly solved by looking at its syntactical context. If it did not have the post-event nature and was put anywhere where it lost its syntactical context, it got wrapped in event-chord to prevent it from getting the post-event nature by accident. This has become considerably more boring: nowadays music without syntactical context has the post-event nature if its music event possesses the post-event type. We don't really have the equivalent for the other side: music possessing the pre-event type (something like EventChord, NoteEvent, RestEvent, SkipEvent and a few others). Not treating EventChord specially would, for example, suggest tacking its own post events into the articulation field rather than grouping them with the rest of the chord elements. It turns out that the event-chord iterator could already deal with that layout. Existing manipulators of music expression would suffer most. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user