Re: Dashed, variable-thickness slurs

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 07:31:26AM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> 
> On 4/17/09 7:26 AM, "Ian Hulin" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I'll comment on the bits I feel qualified on: the documentation bits.
> > 
> > It's taken me while following the threads on lilypond-devel and
> > lilypond-user to work out */why/* this has been developed.
> 
> To tell you the truth, I don't really know why.  All I know is that it
> has been requested.

LOL!

I think it's been a great learning process for everybody involved,
but I personally would work on either personal stuff (I want it!),
popular-requested stuff (more people want it!), or fundamental
stuff (it should be done at some point, but it's too hard to ask a
Frog to do!).  It's not like we don't have 200+ issues already in
the tracker, and bear in mind that the most recently-requested
thing (i.e. you saw it in your mailbox this morning) rarely
satisfies any of those three criteria.

Speaking for myself, #34 (grace note synchronization) satisfies
all of the above.  There's about half a dozen bugs in the repo
that say "this is caused by #34", and it's come up at least twice
as often on the mailist, and we just say "yeah, it's another
instance of #34.  Let's not bother adding it to the tracker".

> > Is there a slot in the documentation that covers the usage of all this
> > fancy slur-sign stuff (LR NR)?
> 
> I've added sections in the Notation Reference for slurs, phrasing slurs,
> and ties that demonstrate the capabilities.

We /might/ add a section for slur-related tweaks (bound-position
or something like that?), along the lines of NR 1.2.6 Time
administration or 1.6.2 Staff Symbol.  But that's a quite low
priority thing.


Side-note: we must make sure that 2.1.6 and 2.6.1 also contain
unusually-detailed explanations of tweaks.

> I haven't added anything about *why* one might want to do so; that seems to
> me to be beyond the scope of the Notation Reference.

Yes.

Cheers,
- Graham