Am 27.09.2012 09:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes:
Am 26.09.2012 14:45, schrieb Thomas Morley:
[...]
Hi Marc,
an idea, don't know if it's really helpful:
>From 2.16.0-bar-line.scm, bar-glyph-alist:
The old definition of bar "empty" was: ("empty" . (() . ()))
The old definition of bar "" was: ("" . ("" . ""))
With regard to that, I have to make a distinction between
"" and '() in the new bar line interface.
What do you think would be better: using a symbol instead of '(),
so one can write
\defineBarLine "|" "|" 'none "|"
or using #f instead:
\defineBarLine "|" "|" #f "|"
I think I'd actually prefer
\defineBarLine "|" #'("|" #f "|")
or
\defineBarLine "|" ##("|" #f "|")
to bring some structure into what is being defined in terms of what.
Just to clarify: the arguments are
\defineBarLine <bar line> <bar-line-at-end-of-line>
<bar-line-at-begin-of-next-line> <span-bar-line>
But some kind of grouping *does* make sense.
or finally defining an "empty stencil" glyph:
\defineBarLine "|" "|" "x" "|"
(note that "" is not the same as "x", as Harm explained; "" draws a
stencil with
zero width, "X" would draw *no* stencil at all).
What do we need a zero width stencil for?
\bar "" inserts an empty stencil, so the padding around the
(invisible) bar line is preserved. If there's no stencil, there will
be no padding.
Marc
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
