Martin Tarenskeen <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Phil Holmes wrote: > >>> 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->) >>> } >>> >>> %%%%
>> I would say so. you might like to add this to the bottom of your example: >> >> \break >> \override Script.outside-staff-priority = #1000 > > 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. Uh, no it isn't? For one thing, only the topmost override is ever consulted. For another, \override by itself _always_ reverts one preceding override (if present in the context at question) before applying its own one. If you want to have some override only temporarily active, you need to use \temporary \override in order to _not_ revert any previously existing override but have it reappear when you \revert your own override. > When use a \revert before adding your example, the result looks a > little less strange. I should be surprised. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
