lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: unhiding a hidden staff at the NEXT line break (instead of previous


From: nothingwavering
Subject: Re: unhiding a hidden staff at the NEXT line break (instead of previous line break)
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:39:47 -0700

Thanks for taking a look at this, Mr. Kastrup, Mr. OHara, and anyone else 
participating in this.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this reverse hara kiri idea, but it doesn't 
seem to make sense to me.  This dead-is-alive stuff make it sound like any 
staff Lilypond would normally hide is shown and any staff it would normally 
show is hidden.  Is that how it works?  How does that help to defer showing a 
staff until the next line break?

Here's another idea.  Isn't there some kind of Scheme call-back that can be 
registered to be trigged at a line break?  Is it possible at the stage of 
processing that a command to set the hara-kiri's keepAliveInterfaces could be 
fired from a line-break call-back procedure?

Thanks,

N.W.


On Dec 15, 2012, at 2:33 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:

> Keith OHara <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> <nothingwavering <at> gmail.com> writes:
>>> 
>>> Anyone know how I can get Lilypond to unhide a staff at the NEXT
>>> line break?
>> 
>> No.
>> 
>> It looks like you have a part for a cello section with the form
>>    unison  |A|  simple-divisi  |B|  complex-divisi
>> where the complex-divisi music demands a separate staff for each part.
>> 
>> If you put your wished-for \showStaffNextBreak at |A| then you would
>> be assuming there is at least one line break between |A| and |B|.
>> 
>> Placing your \showStaff at |B| on the two separate-part staves makes
>> more sense.  But I do not see a way to stop the combined-part staff at
>> the same linebreak where the seaparate-part staves need to begin.
> 
> Can you see whether taking
> <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3024> for a test
> drive and overriding VerticalAxisGroup.dead-is-alive = ##t in the proper
> context provides enough leverage for implementing this kind of thing?
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]