Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Peter Mogensen wrote:
>> Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>>> See
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2005-09/msg00444.html
>>> for the simple extra work-around that's needed.
>>
>> Yes... I did read your post.
>> And as I said in the answer, I've experienced that that solution causes
>> lilypond to give up breaking lines.
>
>
> It seems to be a bug in versions 2.4 and 2.6 that has been fixed in
> version 2.7. Otherwise, I would have asked you to send a separate
> bug report to bug-lilypond.
OK... I didn't know that.
>> I also don't like to have to repeat
>
>> a hack in all voices.
>> Thus, I prefer the solution I just posted.
>
>
> OK! One clear disadvantage is that the first real note of the second
> ending gets typeset too far to the right compared to the other
> parts.
Yes... but only very little, if you use "s64"
For my use this is better. I care about typesetting, but I care even
more about easily maintainable code because I often re-arrange and make
ad-hoc publications for courses.
So I'm willing to compromise a slight shift in one voice for not having
to duplicate hacks in all voices.
> Also, I didn't really see the point of using \grace{...},
> when you anyway were fiddling with the note durations, but when I
> tried it and compared to using
> \hideNotes a64~ \unHideNotes a4*15/16 s16.. g2.
> I noticed that you got a smaller displacement (since the spacing
> is smaller for grace notes) but also a correspondingly shorter
> tie.
Yes... you're right. The use of \grace is not necessary, but it makes a
smaller tie, which IMHO seems more correct.
Peter
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
