Thomas Morley <[email protected]> writes: > 2017-09-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <[email protected]>: >> Thomas Morley <[email protected]> writes: > >>>> Frankly, what does it even _mean_ to use a >>>> particular righthand finger and string for a non-existing note? >>> >>> Well, that hold as well for: >>> { -1 -- d' } >>> but this one works. >> >> That's because historically you could do >> >> <c e g>-1-2-3 >> >> and consequently _equivalently_ >> >> << <c e g> >> s-1-2-3 >> >> >> either of which do the formatting differently from <c-1 e-2 g-3>, using >> the Fingering_engraver rather than the New_fingering_engraver . >> >> But this historic crap is so unrelated to issue 5181 that I am not >> interested in discussing or addressing it in this context. Issue 5181 >> does not touch it. > > Indeed. > I didn't intend to object, just to point to possible expectations. > Also, adding post-events to non-existing notes does not make a lot of > sense, musically speaking, yes. > But LilyPond accepts already > { <>^.\fermata } > Ok, the output is bad, but the "does it make sense?"-argument is then > not that strong, imho.
I was not talking about post-events in general (which include things like \< which are partly even positioned deliberately between notes). But a righthand finger indication or a string number? Might make sense when putting such execution instructions into a separate music variable, but they are mostly used for guitar and other quite explicitly polyphonic instruments so the note/event association seems important. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
