On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 11:36 AM, Urs Liska [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n194817...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> I'm not clear if we are all talking about the same things. Maybe write it
> down explicitly:
> inflection =
> #'((point . (.4 . 12)))
> would now mean: "40 % through the horizontal space between the end points
> and 12 staff spaces above the vertical center between the points. This is
> completely easy to write down but surely confusing to learn, even if
> documented properly.
> By contrast
> inflection =
> #'((point-X-ratio . 0.4)
>    (point-Y . 12))
> seems clearer but more verbose to write out.

I'm a fan of the verbosity, especially with such complex objects as this
where you may (easily!) have 10+ different numbers adjusting the overall
shape. It also self-documents what the values represent.

Abraham Lee

P.S. This is absolutely awesome, Urs! Well done. A next thing would be to
show how this can be used to make flat slurs ;-) By the way, how do the
curves appear when the thickness is more pronounced (i.e., thicker). Does
it still come back down to a point at the end of each segment? My guess is
it does (simply because I haven't tested it myself). That would be nice to
be able to be able to specify whether it should taper back down or not.
Feature request!

View this message in context: 
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
lilypond-user mailing list

Reply via email to