On Wednesday 05 October 2005 23.55, Wiz Aus wrote: > >From: Erik Sandberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [email protected] > >CC: Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wiz Aus > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: Spacing bug > >Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:46:33 +0200 > > > >On Wednesday 05 October 2005 10.23, Mats Bengtsson wrote: > > > Still, I agree with you that especially the spacing between the last > > > note of each measure the following bar line is too tight. As far as I > > > can see, there is no way to specify a minimum distance for that > > > setting, in contrast to all other spacings, for example between the > > > time signature and the first note. > > > >If the spacing gets too tight and you want it to occupy more rows, you can > >also play with the > >\override Score.SeparationItem #'padding > >setting, see 10.1.8 in the 2.7 manual. > > Ok, there's supposed to be a > > r \bar "|." > > at the end. Either way,there seems no question to me that the default > spacing > here is unusuable. The passage looks absolutely fine split out on to two > lines, > so I'm wondering why lilypond thinks it would be better on just one. > > > > > Actually one other thing - why is the duration number necessary when > > > > using a dot? > > > > I would expect to be able to type "c,. d16 e8 f g. a16" for the 5th > > > >bar > > > > > > here, but it doesn't work. > > > > The documentation doesn't suggest that the duration number is > > > >required, > > > > > > but all the examples include it. > > > > > > I don't know any specific reason, but I don't think it hurts, the input > > > syntax can be confusing enough anyway. Consider for example what > > > c4 c. c. > > > would mean if the duration numbers weren't necessary (it would be the > > > same as > > > c4 c4. c4.. > > > which probably would surprise many). > > No, because I only expect the number to carry through, not the dot. > > c4 c. c. would mean c4 c4. c4. > > >Also, the notation wouldn't gain much: It seldom happens regularly that a > >quarter is followed by a dotted quarter > > Um... > > g4 g4. e8 e4 g g4. d8 d4 e f g a b g2. > > (Even allowing that neither of us are American, that tune should at least > ring a faint bell!) > > I wouldn't have thought it at all unusual for any duration note to be > followed by a dotted version of itself.
It's not terribly usual either. In the example above, it's just as common with a note followed by a note twice as slow (e8 e4), or a note followed by a three times as fast note (g4. e8). So if we really need a special shorthand for multiplying the previous duration with 3/2, why wouldn't we also need one to multiply with 1/3 or 2? > >IMHO there's little point in inventing a special syntax for it. > > But that's my point - to me it's special syntax that you *do* need to > repeat the duration number - it seems to be only case where it's necessary. It's not about duration numbers, it's about durations: 8. is one duration, 8 is a different duration. So if you switch from 8 to 8., you need to re-type the entire duration. -- Erik _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
