Re: string information handling inconsistent?

[Marc Hohl]

Carl Sorensen schrieb:
> [...]
>
> Well, I'm pretty sure I understand you.  I think perhaps you misunderstood
> my reply.  I'm not saying that the samples you made were wrong; they were in
> fact correct if we're willing to to accept string-number events following a
> chord.
>   
I was not sure about this, thanks for clarification.
> And if we're going to accept string number events after a chord, then we
> have to make up some means of transferring them from string-number events to
> articulations in order to maintain the connection between note and string
> number, it seems to me.
>
>   
> > Constructs like < c e g > \5 \4 \3 are somewhat strange, but they work,
> > as it seems.
> >     
>
> Yes, they do.  But I'm arguing that they shouldn't.
>   
[...]
> > I am not sure whether to be that restrictive,
> >     
>
> Do you have a good reason why not to be that restrictive?  Can you think of
> a reason why we would want to write
>
> <c e g>4 \3 \2 \1
>
> instead of
>
> <c\3 e\2 g\1>4
>
> ?  I can't think of such a reason.  In my mind, the string number should
> *always* be associated directly with the note to which it applies.  And that
> association is lost in the first example.
>   
You are right - <c e g>4 \3 \2 \1 doesn't make sense.
> [...]
> I think that if we move to the plan I propose, the code will virtually
> vanish.
>
> But the principle is right -- if we have some functionality that is to be
> used in multiple engravers, it should be stored in a common file, and
> headers should be provided in an include file.
>   
Sounds great!

Greetings,

Marc