> > And the severity of the disadvantage is related to the amount of slurs > > you have in your PMX formated scores which you still want to > > change/improve. vote for keeping the syntax and replacing the > > thechnique. Perhaps there is a decent way of extending the already > > existing syntax? > > When silently replacing the technique: Is there a guarantee that the > old slur expressions yield the same slur shapes in PS? If not, I'd > prefer leaving PS-or-not as a global option for the user, either on > the command line or in the score header (or even both).
a) Sorry for being unclear. The latter is exactly what I ment. I don't think that its time to drop the non postscript slurs now although it might be time somewhen in the future. But when you have to change the definition of all slurs in a score in order to improve only some few you think twice before doing so. On the other hand if changing to PS slurs has allways to be done on single slur basis will stay being a stranger. > Call me an oldtimer, but I do not want that PostScript (or any other > output device) will be mandatory to print TeX documents. b) There are quite some dvi viewer which automatically detect changes in the dvi file and reload/redisplay it. At least during basic typesetting work those viewers are a pretty good help in fast checking if everything is there where it should be. Fine tuning (as choosing PS or non-PS slurs) comes later. Using PS and gsview you have allways do do the format conversion and a manual reload in gsview (well at least on un*x everything is scriptable, but...). Thus, keeping the posibillity of typesetting slurs traditionally by using MusixTeX's \islurxxx (with the same syntax of course) would be nice. Fazit: renewed vote for using the syntax as it is with a global A-option for either switching on or off the new technique. Bernhard _______________________________________________ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
