Don Simons wrote:
>
> Stefan Haller wrote
>
> >it is difficult to specify more complicated staff names in
> >PMX because of line length restrictions. For example, if I need a
> >staff name spanning two lines, such as
> >
> > Cornetto o
> > Violino
> >
> >, I would have to say something like
> >
> > \vbox{\hbox to \parindent{\hfill Cornetto o\hfill}%
> > \hbox to \parindent{\hfill Violino\hfill}}
> >
> >(on one line), which PMX truncates without warning. I got around
> >this
> >by saying
> >
> > \vbox{\box100\box101}
> >
> >for the staff name, and then
> >
> > \\setbox100=\hbox to \parindent{\hfill Cornetto o\hfill}\
> > \\setbox101=\hbox to \parindent{\hfill Violino\hfill}\
> >
> >as inline TeX, which seems a bit messy.
>
> Well, at least there is a way :-) . But I would be willing to
> consider two alternate possible enhancements:
>
> 1. Allow longer instrument names.
> 2. Concoct a syntax which would prompt PMX to generate the coding
> Stefan suggests. The syntax could involve including some unique
> character string in the first line of the instrument name, probably at
> the beginning of the input line, and would indicate how many lines are
> to be used in the instrument name. The initial character of the string
> would have to be something that would never be used in an instrument
> name.
>
> Please post your votes. Votes for (2) must be accompanied by
> suggestions for the syntax.
>
I vote for neither. It is really no bother to put
\def\Duet{all that stuff above}
in the initial list of TeX commands, between the --- lines, and then
to use \Duet as instrument label. A preprocessor should not provide
a new mechanism for something that can easily be done without it.
>
> Dirk discussed some "features" of "(" and ")". These new symbols are
> by no means a panacea, in fact they are simply equivalent to "s",
> except that "(" before a note symbol is equivalent to "s" after that
> note. So "( ( a b ) c )" , equivalent to "a s s b s c s", is not
> acceptable, but "(1 ( a b ) c )1" , equivalent to "a s1 s b s c s1" is
> OK.
>
> Dirk also noted that "( d8 d8 ) ) d8 ) ) d8 )" produced the desired
> sequence of three continuation slurs. Although it looks wierd, it is
> consistent with the intended equivalence " d s d s s d s s d s ", as
> would be the sequence "( b8 ( b8 ) ( b8 ) b8 )" which looks slightly
> less wierd. To my mind, this example is one in which the original
> syntax, wherein both slur starts and endings are indicated after the
> note, is more transparent than "("...")" . I cannot see any logical
> reason why " ( d8 d8 ) ( d8 ) ( d8 ) " should be expected to give a
> sequence of three continued slurs. At the moment I'm not inclined to
> introduce any new slur syntax, since all desired combinations can be
> handled by the existing machinery.
>
My philosophy exactly, and (I believe) that of William of Occam. Of
course, my attitude in this case might be influenced by the fact that
M-Tx users don't need the extension, since M-Tx already has "(" and ")"
and for that matter ")(. The syntax for continuation slurs in M-Tx
would be ( d8 d8 )( d8 )( d8 ) which is not the same as
( d8 d8 ) ( d8 ) ( d8 ). :-)
Dirk
