Re: tablature.ly - please test and comment

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 5/27/09 2:50 PM, "Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote:

> 2009/5/23 Marc Hohl <address@hidden>:
>> Neil Puttock schrieb:
> 
>>> Since none of this works properly (I suspect it will require more than
>>> Scheme hacking to get everything working), I don't think it's suitable
>>> for inclusion.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> Hm, I guess you're right - but as a compromise, how about letting the
>> \clearTabTieBreaks as a default, because it is working most of the time, and
>> when someone needs a more sophisticated tab staff, he has to write a
>> separate
>> score for the tablature?
>> 
>> I would propose to rename it as
>> 
>> #(define (tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers grob)
>>       (let* ((tied-fret-nr (ly:spanner-bound grob RIGHT)))
>>             (ly:grob-set-property! tied-fret-nr 'transparent #t)))
>> 
>> make it default by
>> 
>> \override Tie #'after-line-breaking = #tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers
>> 
>> and use this as a kind of starting point for future improvements?
> 
> Oh go on then.  As long as you promise to leave out \markTabTieBreaks. :)
> 
>>> I'm concerned about the amount of duplication here; this basically
>>> repeats all the code in \tabNumbersOnly, which is really something we
>>> should try to avoid in included files.
>>> 
>> 
>> But how to avoid this? One possibility would be to just get rid of the
>> \tabNumbersOnly, because I don't think that tablatures with and
>> without stems will ever be mixed together in a file, and when someone wants
>> to do so, he can \override everything manually.
> 
> I think that's the only option available, since there's no way of
> inserting identifiers into a context definition.

I think it's better to have the duplication and the ability to switch
between \tabNumbersOnly and \tabFullNotation, than to avoid the duplication,
and have \tabFullNotation be a non-undoable setting.

Thanks,

Carl