David Kastrup <[email protected]> writes: > Noeck <[email protected]> writes: > >> Why has that been inverted? To me, \shape PhrasingSlur #… is easier to >> read than \shape #… PhrasingSlur. Could someone briefly explain the >> reason for that? > > The old syntax was > > \shape PhrasingSlur #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0)) > cis8 \( > > The new one supports either > > \shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0)) PhrasingSlur > cis8 \( > > or > > cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0)) \( > > This saves you from having to remember that \( is a PhrasingSlur, and it > makes it possible to change the shape of a double slur > > cis8 ^\( _\) > > by shaping each of the constituting slurs independently with its own > call of \shape.
This is not actually a full explanation since the tweak-like usage would not strictly have necessitated switching the argument order. It turns out, however, that if you stack more than one tweak-like command on the same music expression, not having the music expression for each tweak come last makes for a completely awful syntax, like cis8 -\shape \tweak #'color #red \( #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) rather than cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) \tweak #'color #red \( -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
