lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Bar lines


From: Noeck
Subject: Re: Bar lines
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:18:27 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130221 Thunderbird/17.0.3

Hi *,

Am 06.03.2013 02:59, schrieb Thomas Morley:
> I'll try to answer your first two questions while demonstrating a step
> by step example.

thanks a lot for your very detailed and well thought example! It
addresses and answers even more questions than I thought of.

>> 3) Having a ":" in a span bar line style (like in a)), it is printed
>> above the staff instead of in between the staves (where I would have
>> expected it). Am I wrong to define it this way? Or is this a bug?
> 
> The ":" is a colon-barline. It's only use is in repeat-barlines.
> It's use as a spanbar makes no sense and is not properly defined.
> If you want a dotted line use ";"
I know. Thought about a style where you have repeat dots also between
the staves. It would be kind of consistent (more than having 2 dots
above the staff). But I know that this is no common usecase - except for
one thing:

\defineBarLine "" #'("" "" "|")
\new StaffGroup << { a1 \bar "" a \bar "" } { a1 a } >>

This produces barlines between the staves only. This is quite common to
indicate that the original notation did not have bar lines, but to guide
the modern eye, bar lines are introduced between the staves.
In this case, a repeat could be written, if the ":" could appear in the
span bar line. But the spacing around the empty bar line is not good. Or
should I achieve this in a completely different way?


>> 4) Would it make sens to have a fourth bar line situation (besides in a
>> line, end of line, start of line): The final bar line at the very end of
>> a staff?
> 
> Well, I don't think this is a duty of the barline-interface.
Agreed, I withdraw this :)


Another thing came to my mind:
Before trying it out and writing my first mail, thought I could use
custom barlines now out of the box. Would it make sense to have that?
I will explain what I mean:
  \bar "|!."
would print a bar equivalent to a definition:
  \defineBarLine "|!." #'("|!." "" "|!.")
If you want a different definition you would have to write it, of course.
If that is no good idea, I would suggest to print a warning if an
undefined bar line is used (currently it simply does not print any bar
line, but does not complain neigther).
Example:
  \bar "|:"
results in no bar line without warning.

Thanks again,
Joram


* Should I call you Thomas or Harm?



reply via email to

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