> I wish you would have been in for that discussion a few days earlier, but of
> course I know and understand the reasons why you're late to the party (and so
> does everybody else, I'm sure).
Well, I was busy with work that was a whole lot better paid while leaving me
with rather little room for creative input on the end product. So I try
adjusting to the old balance in LilyPond again... Or something.
Believe it or not, but my issue 1375 proposal is also about lyrics: I want to
finish off the lyricsto in non-Bottom context thing properly, and I need a
melisma-translator for that (so that it works equally well in midi and in
layout) and that means I need to be able to follow a dynamic set of events
(like slur-events and phrasing-slur-events) with spanner-id s over different
contexts and that means that I need first class scheme translators (since C++
translators don't allow a variable set of events to listen for). So far, I am
at the scheme _engraver_ stage. So that's a very long shot and I have no idea
whether it will indeed make it to 2.20 but most of the parts don't involve
changes affecting users and their existing input a whole lot.
So one can take those as they come and see whether one crosses the threshold of
being too disruptive to make it into the next stable release.
And this patch, as it stands, crosses that threshold. And I think maybe one
could get it below that threshold without having to compromise on the goals it
tries to achieve. Or at least split it into a part that can go in now and one
that would want to mature in the next stable release cycle.
Basically, I see this issue as deciding when and where the 2.20 release branch
needs to get split off. In the current form, I'd say it warrants half a year
of developer releases for testing and refining its way of interfacing with the
user. If it can mostly stick with the old way, that is unneeded since it's no
major difference to previously. One can then still bring forward major
interface change and have it mature under user feedback in the developer branch
if it turns out that extending the old interface is leading to more long-term
problems than one wants to carry around permanently.
---
** [issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders**
**Status:** Started
**Created:** Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
**Last Updated:** Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:39 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
