Hi, 2013/8/7 David Kastrup <[email protected]>
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>>> I don't think that distributing ( and ) between standalone event and > >>>>>> post-event respectively is a concept that will carry the day > >>>>>> sufficiently to be given a chance at a comeback. It would make > >>>>>> (c (d) e) > >>>>>> visually confusing. While neither the current > >>>>>> c( d)( e) > >>>>>> nor the standalone event version > >>>>>> (c )(d )e > >>>>>> will win a price for prettiness, they both beat (c (d) e) in > conveying > >>>>>> meaning rather than looking pleasing. > >>>> > >>>> What about considering ( as a post-event and ) as a standalone event ? > >>>> c( )d( )e is symmetric and very clear. > > > > c()d()e is a pain in the ass, and we got rid of it in the 1.8-2.0 > > syntax change. It is a pain in the ass, because when copying music, > > you have to remember to put some adornments (ie. the ')' ) before the > > note, while most go after the note. > > Example? While I am apparently preparing the ground for historic > reenactments, we'll want to convey some of the original horror, and I > don't get it yet. > Do i understand correctly that http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3487 would change slur syntax from c( d)( e) to c()d()e ? I have to say that i don't like c()d()e. best, Janek
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
