On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:26 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > The reason I consider this an excessively bad > idea is that this would turn an "articulation" into something that > creates independent music events at an independent point of time. > > That would mean that the rhythmic event iterator as well as the event > chord iterator would need to contain the full complexity of the > simultaneous music iterator. > > It would also turn a "post-event" into something which only sometimes > and more by accident has a relation to the preceding event. > > For example, if you use \at to delay a slur or accent to a later point > of time, and this later point of time actually has a noteevent in the > current context, the slur or accent would attach itself to the unrelated > noteevent. If you do this using explicit parallel music, the effect is > somewhat predictable to the user and can be thought of as intentional.
These are valid points. Do you have an idea how to do this in a different way? I still think that "post-eventness" is an important feature of our syntax (i.e. things should be written in a more or less chronological way, "decorations" after notes). > But as a post-event on some other note? The normal expectation would > be, I think, that it still anchors to the original note, just with an X > offset based on timing (incidentally, being able to specify horizontal > offsets in terms of timing rather than staff spaces _does_ sound like > something that could be interesting, definitely. As for the rest of your email, i don't have any meaningful answer now :( Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
