On 11/30/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 1. Aligning to *the very first* time signature in a context seems to > > be a problem (eg, "Zart") even though aligning to *subsequent* time > > signatures works fine (eg, "Bewegt"); this may or may not be a bug and > > I've asked Han-Wen so we'll see what he thinks. > > After looking again with a clear head, I suspect that the problem is > > (after-line-breaking . ,shift-right-at-line-begin) > > I'm not sure what the original intention of this patch was, but I think > it deserves to go. Where do rehearsal marks normally go when they are at > the start of the line?
This question stumped me: leafing through different scores seemed to show a more-or-less arbitrary preference for the (horizontal) positioning of system-initial rehearsals, frequently somewhere after the clef but not clearly aligned with anything in particular. So I asked the good people on SCORE mailing list and, in fact, the answers that are coming back all say "every editor has a different opinion". So hmph. One important point: I personally want to align marks exactly with time signatures for the (rather limited) purpose of aligning initial *tempo* indications exactly with the initial time signature (rather than aligning a true, boxed *rehearsal mark* with the initial time signature). I was trying to get at this with the indications "Zart" and "Bewegt" in the ex, but I'm afraid I wasn't clear. (It seems like that question -- "how do I get initial tempo indication and initial time signature to left-align?" -- comes up quite frequently on the list. Whereas, by comparison, I think Liang is the first person I've noticed ask about aligning true, boxed rehearsals ... though, of course, I might not have been reading the posts carefully enough!) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
