Lukas-Fabian Moser <l...@gmx.de> writes: > Hi, > > (I hope I don't start a discussion orthogonal to the actual topic:) > >> I don't think this is the right place – \laissezVibrer is not related >> to repeats at all. > > That's something I have been wondering for some time now: There seem > to be two semantically very different ideas relating to ties to/from > nothing, namely: > > - as an articulation: Obvious for \laissezVibrer from the name, but > might also be conceivable as some esoteric form of "dal niente" for > \repeatTie > > - as a special construction for ties cut in half by repeat barlines > (which might also be needed for slurs and phrasing slurs, for that > matter). > > At the moment, \laissezVibrer and \repeatTie form a geometrically > symmetric pair, so to speak, but the names are distinctly > non-symmetrical, one name emphasizing the use as an articulation, the > other the use in a repeat situation. > > Wouldn't it, in the interest of semantically "correct" coding, more > natural to have distinct commands > > - for articulation: a pair of \laissezVibrer and (e.g.) \tieFromNothing > > - for repeats: a pair of (e.g.) \openingTie & \closingTie or > \tieToRepeat & \tieFromRepeat ?
One thing about \laissezVibrer vs a repeat-ending semitie is that the look may be the same, but the Midi rendition (or some MusicXML conversion) should clearly be different. -- David Kastrup