The basic problem I have with this approach is that this patch is doing two
things:
The first is to decide whether the user might want an extender when he did not
explicitly ask for it. I am ok with that part. And I think there is input (""
or so) to actually override that decision.
The second is to decide that the user is no longer allowed to explicitly ask
for an extender. That is a consequence of implementing the first half of the
issue in a manner where it is impossible to find out whether the user asked
explicitly for an extender because extenders are placed in the music expression
automatically.
I am not on board with that approach. Now it is comparatively easy for the
extender engraver to look at the process_music stage whether or not there was
an explicit extender and take different action depending on that. So there is
no real necessity for stopping the music expression from representing the
actual input.
Now this would be a comparatively simple change to your work, except that those
commits resulting from the decision not to allow/heed explicit extenders to be
input would not be present.
I would therefore suggest that you push your current work (assuming that it
_is_ structured into several commits) to a branch origin/heads/dev/issue4509 or
so so that I am able to propose changes which _will_ allow automatic insertion
of extenders without messing with manually inserted extenders (apart from the
changes in their appearance implied by this patch, but not whether they appear
at all).
This would also make it comparatively easy to use an override for regaining the
previous behavior, namely only putting in explicitly requested extenders. This
would be beneficial for people wanting to write an Urtext edition having
extenders if and only if the original showed them.
---
** [issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders**
**Status:** Started
**Created:** Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
**Last Updated:** Sat Jan 28, 2017 08:31 AM UTC
**Owner:** Alexander Kobel
**Attachments:**
-
[Selection_005.png](https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4509/attachment/Selection_005.png)
(263.8 kB; image/png)
*Originally created by:* *anonymous
*Originally created by:*
[[email protected]](http://code.google.com/u/116549170756205086316/)
Actually, this is a content vs. presentation issue. The current approach has
lyric extenders ‘hardcoded’ within the lyricmode input, whereas often it
depends on layout whether I want an extender printed or not:
– In tight horizontal spacing, we might not need an extender, but when spacing
is stretched, it might become necessary. This can come through different
\(page/line\) breaking, parallel contexts present only in some editions \(part
vs. score\), Completion\_heads\_engraver \(mensural without
barlines/transcription with barlines\).
– Long syllables might not need an extender, where short syllables do.
– Often, all voices share the same text, but have extenders in different
places. If extenders need not be given explicitly, the lyricmode input code can
be reused much easier.
After all, the extenders don’t add any additional meaning, but only serve to
improve legibility in such cases where they do.
This would require:
– Recognising the end of a word by absence of a hyphen.
– Comparing printed length of the melisma notes vs. the syllable, likely after
line breaking. After all, extenders will never influence horizontal spacing.
They might, however, affect vertical spacing. \(unless we chose to omit \(or
shift\) the extender in that case?\)
– Personally, I think very short extenders shouldn’t be printed. There should
be some kind of threshold.
It’s also one of the usecases where a proper representation of a ‘lyric word’
would be helpful, along with [issue 2458](#2458).
Possibly related:
[issue 4098](#4098)
[Version
2.12](http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Aligning-lyrics-to-a-melody#Multiple-notes-to-one-syllable)
had this listed as a Known issue.
https://codereview.appspot.com/313240043 )
---
Sent from sourceforge.net because [email protected] is
subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/
To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is
a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Testlilyissues-auto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/testlilyissues-auto
