Re: Error in new articulation _

[Graham Percival]

Please keep LilyPond emails on the mailing list; that way the answers 
are archived
and everybody can search for them.

I must admit that I was wrong about the Britten suites, but it's 
possible that somebody,
somewhere, wants the line closer to the notehead.  We could probably 
remove the
-_ articulation without any problems, but since it's there now we might 
as well leave
it in there.

I don't think that changing the language simply in order to save a few 
keystrokes
is a good idea -- especially since it doesn't clearly save keystrokes.  
---. is very simple
to type; -_ requires the use of the shift key.  :)

Note that ---. and -.-- simply tells LilyPond "put a legato mark and a 
staccato mark on this
note".  LilyPond then puts the marks in the normal order, with the dot 
closer to
the notehead.  If we add -> to the mix, LilyPond would place that in 
the proper
place as well, regardless of the order of symbols.

Cheers,
- Graham

On 31-Oct-04, at 2:15 PM, Alexandre Beneteau wrote:

> Thanks for your answer.
>
> Since combinaison of dot and line whith line closer to the notehead 
> seems used, but less than the oposite, may I propose that the notation 
> "-_" "-.--" should be reversed ? ( "-_" for the most common case (the 
> dot closer to the notehead), and -.-- for the line near the notehead).
> It will save keystrokes for the most common case, isn't it ?
>
>         Alex.
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > On 30-Oct-04, at 5:03 AM, Alexandre Beneteau wrote:
> > > I am wondering if the new articulation _ (which produce a dot and a 
> > > _ over the notehead) does not print it wrongly.
> > If you use "-.--" then Lilypond will print the dot closer to the 
> > notehead.  "-_" is supposed to be used when you want the line closer 
> > to the notehead.  I think I saw it in a Britten unaccompanied  cello 
> > suite; I'll double-check if you want.