Re: LM 4.4.2 \fooDown \fooUp (and how about \textDown?)
- Ursprüngliche Mitteilung - > > Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:22 PM > > On 12/21/10 1:14 PM, "Valentin Villenave" > > wrote: > > > > > Oh, and by the way: we have \textSpannerDown for text spanners, > > > but > > > not \textDown for simple TextScript objects (that are quite > > > likely to > > > be needed by new users). Anyone against adding textDown, textUp, > > > textNeutral? > > > > Why should we add \textDown, \textUp, and \textNeutral? > > TextScript is > > markup text, IIUC, and markup text attached to a note is always > > preceded by > > ^ - or _, isn't it? It seems to me that having special commands > > will just > > cause confusion. > > I agree. The predefined commands that exist are > useful because the preceding direction indicator > may be omitted, but it may not be omitted from a > \markup. I don't agree. The predefined commands are useful to specify the default behavior - whether this is indicated by a - or by the omission of a specifier is irrelevant. Imagine a continuo part. For the celli/double basses you want the dynamics and probably also most markup text down. For the organ however you have the bass figures below the staff, so the dynamics and all markup text should default to up (by usung \dynamicUp etc.) I agree, though, that *Up/Down are just shortcuts for property overrides, so it's not like we are missing functionality. It's just about consistency. Cheers, Reinhold ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LM 4.4.2 \fooDown \fooUp (and how about \textDown?)
Carl Sorensen wrote Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:22 PM On 12/21/10 1:14 PM, "Valentin Villenave" wrote: Oh, and by the way: we have \textSpannerDown for text spanners, but not \textDown for simple TextScript objects (that are quite likely to be needed by new users). Anyone against adding textDown, textUp, textNeutral? Why should we add \textDown, \textUp, and \textNeutral? TextScript is markup text, IIUC, and markup text attached to a note is always preceded by ^ - or _, isn't it? It seems to me that having special commands will just cause confusion. I agree. The predefined commands that exist are useful because the preceding direction indicator may be omitted, but it may not be omitted from a \markup. Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LM 4.4.2 \fooDown \fooUp (and how about \textDown?)
Valentin Villenave wrote Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:14 PM I've been looking at the LM 4.4.2 Placement of objects > Within-staff objects, and I'm not sure we want to use "Down/Left" and "Up/Right" in the table. Yes, we all know that -1 and 1 may respectively mean either "down" or "left" and either "up" or "right", but in this table we're *only* documenting objects that are aligned vertically! I think I wrote the heading as it is because down stems are on the left and up stems on the right, but I've no objection to removing the "left" and "right". Trevor ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: LM 4.4.2 \fooDown \fooUp (and how about \textDown?)
On 12/21/10 1:14 PM, "Valentin Villenave" wrote: > Greetings everybody, hi Trevor, > > I've been looking at the LM 4.4.2 Placement of objects > Within-staff > objects, and I'm not sure we want to use "Down/Left" and "Up/Right" in > the table. Yes, we all know that -1 and 1 may respectively mean either > "down" or "left" and either "up" or "right", but in this table we're > *only* documenting objects that are aligned vertically! I agree with you here. I think it should be Down and Up in the table headings. > > Oh, and by the way: we have \textSpannerDown for text spanners, but > not \textDown for simple TextScript objects (that are quite likely to > be needed by new users). Anyone against adding textDown, textUp, > textNeutral? Why should we add \textDown, \textUp, and \textNeutral? TextScript is markup text, IIUC, and markup text attached to a note is always preceded by ^ - or _, isn't it? It seems to me that having special commands will just cause confusion. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
