u_li wrote: > > Am 09.08.2011 02:55, schrieb Reinhold Kainhofer: >> On Di., 9. Aug. 2011 01:34:02 CEST, David Kastrup<[email protected]> wrote: >>> harm6<[email protected]> writes: >>>> Yes. But the Notation Reference demonstrates: >>>> >>>> \relative c' { >>>> <c e g>2~<c e g> >>>> \override TieColumn #'tie-configuration = >>>> #'((0.0 . 1) (-2.0 . 1) (-4.0 . 1)) >>>> <c e g>2~<c e g> >>>> } >>> Where is your point? It would still work after the next chord. >> The example gives the impression that it needs to be set before the tie. >> I would also expect this, so I would intuitively also place the >> \once\override before the tie and wonder why it doesn't work. >> >> Cheers, >> Reinhold >
Reinhold pointed out what I intended to illustrate. > Hi all, > > thanks for the discussion. > That the end of the tie counts is quite surprising as generally one has > to place the overrides before the beginning of the item one wants to > change. From reading the NR one would never think of such a possibility. > > So I'd say: > a) What is the reason for this unusual behaviour? Is there a reason to > keep it as it is or shouldn't we change this to a more consistent > behaviour? > It isn't such an unusual behaviour, because the Item to override isn't the Tie, you apply to TieColumn. > b) If it is decided to keep the current behaviour (for some conceptual > reason or for sake of simplicity) this should be clearly documented. > In that case (please confirm) I'll prepare a documentation suggestion > (at the same time correcting the issue with "half spaces" mentioned by > Janek). > > Best > Urs > Cheers, Harm -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Why-can%27t-I-%5Coverride-TieColumn--%27tie-configuration-only-%5Conce--tp32222279p32224380.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
