Hi David, >> Well, in this case, I’m engraving a Schenker graph… so I doubt anyone will >> be playing it. ;) > LilyPond has its own functions for Schenker graphs.
To which functions in particular are you referring? I’ve slowly been building a SchenkerLily framework over the last few years, and the only thing I’ve seen is <http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=501>, the inelegance of which was precisely what inspired me to start working on a SchenkerLily framework in the first place… > LilyPond tends to focus on situations that are considered to be part of > "valid" musical scores. When working outside of that scope, it's not > all that unusual for stuff to be different from expectations. I understand that, of course. >> Yes. But Lilypond corrects for the presence of (and potential >> collision with) articulations, etc. — why not for the presence of (and >> potential collision with) another slur? > > Basically because it would be additional programming effort to cater for > this case that nobody considered relevant so far. It's not by explicit > design or some grand masterplan logic. Oh, I understand that. My point was more philosophical: I was trying to answer David S’s implication (or at least my inference from what he wrote) that there’s *no reason* why slurs might consider adjacent slurs for potential collisions. Cheers, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
