On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Phil Holmes wrote:
Hi,
Try to compile the following example:
%%%%
\version "2.19.25"
\relative {
d''-.( d-. d-. d-.)
d-_( d-_ d-_ d-_)
d--( d-- d-- d--)
d-^( d-^ d-^ d-^)
d-+( d-+ d-+ d-+)
d-!( d-! d-! d-!)
d->( d-> d-> d->)
\break
\override Slur.outside-staff-priority = #500
d-.( d-. d-. d-.)
d-_( d-_ d-_ d-_)
d--( d-- d-- d--)
d-^( d-^ d-^ d-^)
d-+( d-+ d-+ d-+)
d-!( d-! d-! d-!)
d->( d-> d-> d->)
}
%%%%
Why are the articulations in bars 2, 7, 9, 14 treated differently? It seems
they are aligned with the slurs instead of the notes. Should I forward this
to bug-lilypond?
I would say so. you might like to add this to the bottom of your example:
\break
\override Script.outside-staff-priority = #1000
d-.( d-. d-. d-.)
d-_( d-_ d-_ d-_)
d--( d-- d-- d--)
d-^( d-^ d-^ d-^)
d-+( d-+ d-+ d-+)
d-!( d-! d-! d-!)
d->( d-> d-> d->)
Yes, that looks strange and bad. But maybe not quite fair to use a second
override without using \revert to undo the first override. That's asking
for trouble. When use a \revert before adding your example, the result
looks a little less strange.
Anyway, I will post to bug-lilypond.
--
MT
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
