I think the issue here is that David K has read the documentation (the NR,
section 2.4.1) but BB probably hasn't, and is trying to guess what a lilypond
command does from its name. This is always likely to be problematical.
--
Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From: BB
To: David Kastrup
Cc: lilypond-user Mailinglist
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2015 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: restrainOpenStrings
I try an explanation again:
If a user says
\set TabStaff.minimumFret = #5
I would expect that LP obeys and just uses no frets closer to the nut tha
five. As you wrote, LP is unobedient and uses open strings against that
imperative TabStaff.minimumFret = #5 ? On the other extreme if one sets
\set TabStaff.minimumFret = #5
in my short code example LP is fussy and omits the d that would simply be
feasible with the 3rd fret.
Why does LP use open strings (fret 0 = nut) lower than 5th fret, but is not
flexible enough to use 3rd string for d in my example - certainly with a
warning or simple notice? (Indeed there is a warning that no string is defined
for that note d ...). I think, a positive warning in the sense " I cannot
accomplish your wish for d with minimum Fret = #5. I warn/inform you, that I
will/can do it with the 3rd fret. So please react if you do not like that". So
I can react and change something or I may agree. Beside: There is simply no
alternative to the 3rd fret in my example!
The same is true for
\set TabStaff.restrainOpenStrings = ##t
For me the text implies, that LP must not use open strings. In my
interpretation minimumFret has nothing to do with \set TabStaff.minimumFret =
#5 straight. I would expect, that LP will obey and fullfill my wish "no open
strings". Whereas "restrain" is not a strong categorically prohibition, but is
a bit softer - maybe in the meaning "whenever possible". (A problem with this
only happens with the "last" string, i. e. 6th string on guitar or the
equivalent for other stringed instruments.)
That soft "whenever possible" I would like for \set TabStaff.minimumFret as
well.
Again, let me point out that I know the "contradictories" ("contradictories"
in my view/logic) and therefore I can handle it.
Thanks.
On 13.09.2015 12:44, David Kastrup wrote:
BB <[email protected]> writes:
I just pointed out - I can live with this contradictories. So simply
let me annul my question.
LilyPond's behavior and documentation is not supposed to be
contradictory. So please point out any actual contradictions in the
documentation or LilyPond's behavior so that they may be fixed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
