Re: GDP: Rhythms: add-grace-property

[Carl Sorensen]

Jonathan Kulp <jonlancekulp <at> gmail.com> writes:

> 
> So, the question is whether it's worth introducing add-grace-property 
> and/or remove-grace-property at that point in NR, since it already shows 
> how to alter stem direction using \stemDown in a different example right 
> before it.  Is it sufficiently abnormal that it should belong to a 
> snippet instead of appearing in the main text?  Should I create an 
> example that works and then move it to the @snippets area?  This 
> question is probably for Carl :)
> 

OK, let me see.  The doc policy is that anything using \override
or \tweak has to be in a snippet.  This is not \override or \tweak,
but it is playing with default behavior.

I haven't played with the grace system enough to know how it works,
so I'm doing a bit of guessing in my answer.

I assume the following:

1. By default grace note stems go the same direction
as the following note, and that that is the desired behavior.

2. If in a certain instance we want to change the grace stem
direction, we use add-grace-property 'direction.

3. If we want to cancel the set direction, we use
remove-grace-property 'direction.

4. There are other properties that might want to be modified
by add-grace-property and remove-grace-property.  My quick
testing showed Stem font-size, NoteHead font-size, Dots font-size, 
Beam thickness, Beam length-fraction, Accidental font-size, 
AccidentalCautionary font-size, Slur direction, and Script font-size.

If all these assumptions are true, I think it would be important to 
have some snippet that shows the use of add-grace-property
and remove-grace-property.  If you want to spend some time
talking about these functions, you could probably do it in the main
text.  On the other hand, even if these don't use \override, they
are closely related to \override, so perhaps it would be best in the
@snippets section.

For now, I'll trust your judgment to do the right thing. 

Thanks,

Carl