[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082)
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082) |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Apr 2011 06:42:36 -0600 |
On 4/28/11 6:35 AM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 4/27/11 5:00 PM, "address@hidden" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> On 2011/04/26 17:11:02, c_sorensen_byu.edu wrote:
>>> On 4/26/11 11:00 AM, "address@hidden"
>> <mailto:address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:55 AM, mailto:address@hidden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 26, 2011, at 7:30 AM, mailto:address@hidden
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The old behavior can be achieved via:
>>>>>
>>>>> \set glissandoMap = #'((0 . 0))
>>>>>
>>>>> What would be the appropriate .ly file in ly/ to put this in?
>>>>
>>>> Alternatively, we could write a convert-ly rule that changes all
>> \glissando to
>>>> \set glissandoMap = #'((0 . 0)) \glissando \unset glissandoMap.
>>>>
>>>> I think that the majority of users who write glissandi between
>> chords will
>>>> want full-chord glissandi. So, it seems that #'() should be the
>> default value
>>>> for glissandoMap (as it is in the proposed patch).
>>>>
>>> If all notes should be part of the glissando, then I think we should
>> *not*
>>> write a convert-ly rule. Rather, we should make sure that the new
>> setting
>>> is noted in changes, and we should make sure the new behavior is
>> documented.
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>>> Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> Hey Carl et al,
>>
>> Before I push this patch, are there any further questions/concerns
>> regarding it?
>> Specifically:
>>
>> (a) Are people all right with glissando'ed chords being default
>> behavior (given how ties work in lilypond, this seems to make sense)?
>
> I'm fine with it, but I'm not a good reference -- my experience with music
> is too limited.
>
>>
>> (b) With respect to my previous question about internal-properties, is
>> it ok to have glissando-index in define-grob-properties.scm and to put
>> it in the glissando-interface? If not, where should I put it?
>
> Personally, I think it should be in define-grob-properties.scm as an
> internal property, and not in an interface. There are lots of examples of
> properties like that, as far as I can see. For example, least-squares-dy,
> maybe-loose, positioning-done, important-column-ranks, pure-Y-extent. In my
> mind, we don't have interfaces to things that the user couldn't set
> properly, and glissando-index is one of those. We can read without an
> interface, we just can't set without an interface.
>
> But I could easily be wrong on this.
In fact, I was wrong on this. Please ignore all my comments on the
interface. Mike's approach is correct.
Thanks,
Carl
- Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082), (continued)
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082), mtsolo, 2011/04/27
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082), percival . music . ca, 2011/04/28
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082),
Carl Sorensen <=
Re: Allows glissandi between chords (issue4442082), n . puttock, 2011/04/28