Re: Automatic LyricExtenders (issue 313240043 by address@hidden)

[pkx166h]

On 2016/12/25 21:53:55, akobel wrote:
> On 2016/12/25 15:43:05, Knut_Petersen_t-online.de wrote:
> > Hi everybody!
> >
> > > I'm only 90% happy about "" and \markup\null...
> > > For dynamic spanners and hairpins, we have \! to end them
prematurely
> > > before a "natural" end event appears.  Is this similar enough to
warrant
> > > the use of the same token (i.e., \! would be translated to empty
lyrics
> > > with a CompletizeExtenderEvent), and is it possible at all?
Otherwise,
> > > should we have a special token for this (\. comes to my mind)?
> > >
> > The use of "" and  \markup\null is nothing new, so it needs to be
handled
> correctly anyway.
> > It's possible to move a \markup\null to the left or right, therefore
it is
> useful for \earlyExtender.
> > If this property is not needed "" will be used as it is much easier
to type.
> If \! or something similar
> > would be provided for the same purpose almost everybody probably
still would
> use the faster "".

> Granted. Didn't think of that, probably because I can't remember
having ever
> used either.

> > __ meant "add an extender event", this is meaningless with the
proposed patch
> as
> > an extender event is added after every syllable. To increase
compatibility I
> feel that it
> > _never_ should be reused for anything.

> Okay. I was considering that in case we could make \autoExtenderOff to
revert to
> the previous behavior.
> But on second though, there is hardly any use for that, and it creates
more
> confusion than it's worth.


> Bottom line: I withdraw both proposals.

Can you then re-submit a new patch or delete the one(s) that are
invalid?

I don't know what has and what has not been tested for sure, as far as I
can tell only patch set 1 has been tested which had a slew of warning
messages during the reg test output that I don't know are expected,
desirable or something else.

Thanks

James



https://codereview.appspot.com/313240043/