Re: Coda

[David Kastrup]

Philip Thomas <address@hidden> writes:

> In the particular context I was dealing 
> with, I ended up wrestling with "define-markup-command" and losing the
> match badly. But I still find "<>" to have more
> intuitive emotional and syntactic appeal than "s1*0". A more neutral
> symbol might be nice though.

Both <> and s1*0 are as neutral as it gets: they have not been created
for the purpose they serve.

The basic question "what entities can receive articulations" is similar
to the question "what entities can form ligatures" for word processors
and/or TeX.

Historically, the question "does x have the post-event nature" has been
mostly solved by looking at its syntactical context.  If it did not have
the post-event nature and was put anywhere where it lost its syntactical
context, it got wrapped in event-chord to prevent it from getting the
post-event nature by accident.

This has become considerably more boring: nowadays music without
syntactical context has the post-event nature if its music event
possesses the post-event type.

We don't really have the equivalent for the other side: music possessing
the pre-event type (something like EventChord, NoteEvent, RestEvent,
SkipEvent and a few others).  Not treating EventChord specially would,
for example, suggest tacking its own post events into the articulation
field rather than grouping them with the rest of the chord elements.

It turns out that the event-chord iterator could already deal with that
layout.  Existing manipulators of music expression would suffer most.

-- 
David Kastrup