Am 03.12.2012 07:06, schrieb David Kastrup: > 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 \( > Thanks a lot for explaining! Joram
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
