Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: > On 5/7/10 8:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Well, looks like a fair piece of work. And if one invests all this >> work... I guess it would be nicer if one could write <c\glissando >> e\glissando g\glissando> <d e f> and notes got matched one by one. >> And possibly let <c e g>\glissando be the same as that spelled-out >> first chord. >> >> Putting aside the obvious "patches will be thoughtfully considered" >> to a later point of time, anybody with a hunch why this would be a >> bad idea and/or terribly complicated to implement and/or leading to a >> lot of unpredictable behavior? > > I don't have any ideas why it would be a bad idea. I'd be happy to > have the behavior you describe. > > The reason it doesn't work now is that \glissando inside a chord construct > creates an articulation, while \glissando outside a chord construct creates > a separate event. For me, it was much easier to create a music function > than to dive in and do the repairs necessary to get to the state you > describe. So I did it. In this case, a music function basically is casting a snippet's essence into something one can use. > I appreciate your consistent questioning as to how we might be able to > get LilyPond to behave in a way that seems consistent with our > expectations. I wish I had the time to understand the internals of > parsing better so I could contribute more in this area. But I don't, > so I do the best I can with the time I have. And it's appreciated. In an ideal world, the snippet corpus would be without things one would label "hack". I don't know when I'll have time to look at that one, but it seems tempting. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
