Re: repeatTie question
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: > Hi, > > (I hope I don't start a discussion orthogonal to the actual topic:) > >> I don't think this is the right place – \laissezVibrer is not related >> to repeats at all. > > That's something I have been wondering for some time now: There seem > to be two semantically very different ideas relating to ties to/from > nothing, namely: > > - as an articulation: Obvious for \laissezVibrer from the name, but > might also be conceivable as some esoteric form of "dal niente" for > \repeatTie > > - as a special construction for ties cut in half by repeat barlines > (which might also be needed for slurs and phrasing slurs, for that > matter). > > At the moment, \laissezVibrer and \repeatTie form a geometrically > symmetric pair, so to speak, but the names are distinctly > non-symmetrical, one name emphasizing the use as an articulation, the > other the use in a repeat situation. > > Wouldn't it, in the interest of semantically "correct" coding, more > natural to have distinct commands > > - for articulation: a pair of \laissezVibrer and (e.g.) \tieFromNothing > > - for repeats: a pair of (e.g.) \openingTie & \closingTie or > \tieToRepeat & \tieFromRepeat ? One thing about \laissezVibrer vs a repeat-ending semitie is that the look may be the same, but the Midi rendition (or some MusicXML conversion) should clearly be different. -- David Kastrup
Re: repeatTie question
Hi, (I hope I don't start a discussion orthogonal to the actual topic:) I don't think this is the right place – \laissezVibrer is not related to repeats at all. That's something I have been wondering for some time now: There seem to be two semantically very different ideas relating to ties to/from nothing, namely: - as an articulation: Obvious for \laissezVibrer from the name, but might also be conceivable as some esoteric form of "dal niente" for \repeatTie - as a special construction for ties cut in half by repeat barlines (which might also be needed for slurs and phrasing slurs, for that matter). At the moment, \laissezVibrer and \repeatTie form a geometrically symmetric pair, so to speak, but the names are distinctly non-symmetrical, one name emphasizing the use as an articulation, the other the use in a repeat situation. Wouldn't it, in the interest of semantically "correct" coding, more natural to have distinct commands - for articulation: a pair of \laissezVibrer and (e.g.) \tieFromNothing - for repeats: a pair of (e.g.) \openingTie & \closingTie or \tieToRepeat & \tieFromRepeat ? Lukas
Re: repeatTie question
> It's ironic that \laissezVibrer follows on directly from \repeatTie > on page 57, but you might miss it if the name means nothing to you, > and the next illustration doesn't catch your eye. In https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/751 I've added a paragraph at the beginning of the 'Ties' section that explains ties to and from nothing. > But I couldn't help noticing that, if you use the Contents rather than > the Index, the lengthy section § 1.4 Repeats now doesn't cover > ties at all, nor does it point back to Ties (which falls under > § 1.2 Rhythms unconnected with repeats). Well, it gets mentioned as... > There's an oblique reference to \repeatTie on page 161 under > Known issues and warnings. ... this. > Might this be preceded by a paragraph on the use of \laissezVibrer > and \repeatTie, with a pointer back to pp56–7? I don't think this is the right place – \laissezVibrer is not related to repeats at all. Werner
