Re: Automatic beaming in melismas

[Janek Warchoł]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Francisco Vila <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2012/3/22 Janek Warchoł <address@hidden>:
>> What i suggest would be quite the opposite: every melisma should be
>> indicated using a melisma command, and *then* user can decide how he
>> wants melismas to look like: should every melisma be automatically
>> marked with a slur, or a dotted slur, or should beaming be used for
>> it, or something different (or nothing at all).
>
> For (specifically) vocal scores, slurs are not redundant to indicate
> melismas. Melismas are indicated in the score by slurls, so slur
> equals melisma.

Not always.  Sometimes they're also used for portamento between syllabes.

> But I agree on it would be good to separate both so to ease reusing of
> that music in other contexts.

Glad that we agree here.
Also, one all-purpose melisma command would be simpler to understand for users.

>> Of course, a shorter (preferably one-character) command name should be
>> chosen.  \melisma and \melismaEnd is too much typing.
>
> It is standard policy of lilypond's syntax to have meaningful names
> for commands and you can always define your shorter commands.

well, we don't have a \slur and \slurEnd commands.  Aslo, melismas
appear so often that i think the syntax should be standarized.
But i'm not at all against having both full name and shortcut,
similarly to -\staccato and -.

thanks,
Janek