> If you uncomment the second slurShapeTwo you will see that it attaches to > the slur of the bottom note. My use of \slashedGrace and a manual slur was > just to get the slur closer to what I wanted, then the \shape command > doesn't have to be as drastic.
I guess I was not reading your message properly, in that I didn't initially see the need to have to change to \slashedGrace. As Mats has pointed out, it may as well be a bug and the case should be opened. Yoshi On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 3:03 PM Knute Snortum <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2025 at 5:44 AM Yoshiaki Onishi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> In writing this, I realize I am not addressing the very issue you >> describe, but it does appear it isn’t necessary for you to change >> \acciaccatura to a \slashedGrace to modify the slur shape. As an exercise >> for myself, I just did a quick example (sorry, it’s not MWE) out of Chopin >> Prelude No. 12, m. 24 (I based it on the Paderewski urtext edition). Code >> is at the end of my message. As you will see, it is still possible to >> adjust the slur shape within acciaccatura, but it appears the placement of >> the \shape command matters. >> > > Here is the code stripped down to what I think are the essentials: > > %%% > \version "2.25.30" > > slurShapeTwo = \shape #'((0 . 0.25)(-0.2 . 1)(-0.25 . 1)(-0.5 . 1.5)) Slur > % slurShapeTwo = \shape #'((0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 0) (0 . 0)) Slur > > { > \acciaccatura { \slurShapeTwo f'8 } > \stemDown <e' c'>[ <d' b>] > } > %%% > > It looks like you're using \slurShapeTwo to get the acciaccatura to attach > to the top note. If you uncomment the second slurShapeTwo you will see > that it attaches to the slur of the bottom note. My use of \slashedGrace > and a manual slur was just to get the slur closer to what I wanted, then > the \shape command doesn't have to be as drastic. > > > -- > Knute Snortum > > >
