Re: Slurs, phrasing slurs and fingering

[Noeck]

Am 03.12.2012 07:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> Noeck <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Why has that been inverted? To me, \shape PhrasingSlur #… is easier to
>>> read than \shape #… PhrasingSlur. Could someone briefly explain the
>>> reason for that?
>>
>> The old syntax was
>>
>>       \shape PhrasingSlur #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0))
>>       cis8 \(
>>
>> The new one supports either
>>
>>       \shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0))  PhrasingSlur
>>       cis8 \(
>>
>> or
>>
>>       cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 0)) \(
>>
>> This saves you from having to remember that \( is a PhrasingSlur, and it
>> makes it possible to change the shape of a double slur
>>
>>       cis8 ^\( _\)
>>
>> by shaping each of the constituting slurs independently with its own
>> call of \shape.
> 
> This is not actually a full explanation since the tweak-like usage would
> not strictly have necessitated switching the argument order.  It turns
> out, however, that if you stack more than one tweak-like command on the
> same music expression, not having the music expression for each tweak
> come last makes for a completely awful syntax, like
> 
> cis8 -\shape \tweak #'color #red \( #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) 
> 
> rather than
> 
> cis8 -\shape #'((0 . 1) (0 . 1.8) (0 . 1.8) (0. 0)) \tweak #'color #red \(
> 
Thanks a lot for explaining!
Joram