1 Feb 2005 03:19
Re: Patch: tie-ing enharmonic variants
Michael Welsh Duggan <md5i <at> cs.cmu.edu>
2005-02-01 02:19:30 GMT
2005-02-01 02:19:30 GMT
Paul Scott <pslist <at> ultrasw.com> writes: > Kilian A. Foth wrote: > >>Paul Scott writes: >> > Kilian A. Foth wrote: >> > > >Greetings, >> > > >> > >a while back I asked lilypond-user how to engrave a tie between >> > >enharmonic variants, such as g sharp in one bar and a flat in the next >> > >after a key change. The reponse was that not only does lilypond not do >> > >this, but you cannot even typeset the tie manually by \overriding >> > >something. I was also told that there had been a discussion about the >> > >question previously, but I cannot find it in the archives - therefore >> > >allow me to make my proposition here. >> > > >> > >I feel that lilypond should not silently refuse to tie enharmonic >> > >variants if the user explicitly requests it. Choral music is >> > >frequently notated like this, to help singers through key changes that >> > >involve shifting from sharp to flat or vice versa. In keyboard music, >> > >there is no difference between enharmonic variants at all, since there >> > >is only one key for both. I therefore propose the following patch: >> > > > > >> > What's wrong with just using a slur which should look identical to >> what > you want? >> > >> >>Using a slur fails if you want to tie a chord, because it generates >> only one slur instead of four. >>(Continue reading)
>What is it exactly that you need to know. What do you miss when
>looking at the places where a property (say dashed) is used?
>
>
I have the following questions:
The ADD_INTERFACE macro is only for documentation?
Where are the properties of a grob defined?
What is the Lookup::dashed_slur function for?
Are dashed slurs are actually simple curves?
Do I have to modify slur.cc, define-grob-properties.scm,
define-grobs.scm, lookup.cc, output-*.scm? (And property-init.ly,
engraver-init.ly, and examples.)
Bert
RSS Feed