Re: Bar lines

[Marc Hohl]

Am 07.03.2013 17:56, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Am 07.03.2013 10:06, schrieb David Kastrup:
> > > [...]
> > > Ok, here is the deal: I promise to give real thought about a way to
> > > _define_ repeat structures in such a straightforward manner that a user
> > > would understand how to create repeat structures of his own including
> > > working Midi and \expandRepeats as long as he can hack together the
> > > glyphs for the _looks_.
> > >
> > > And you promise think about how the barline definition interface might
> > > be made more friendly when in-line recipe and call string are not forced
> > > to be the same, and how more complex recipes might benefit from not
> > > being string-only.  I can also imagine recipes/definitions like
> > >
> > > (define-bar-type "|:"
> > >     ".|:" :prebreak "|" :postbreak ".|:" :spanbar ("xxx" "yyy"))
> > Ok, sounds like a good deal ;-)
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by :spanbar ("xxx" "yyy")?
> I have absolutely no idea.
Hehe.
>   I was just throwing out possible Scheme
> syntax elements that could be used in such an interface, probably based
> on define*-public (which parses keywords argument like above).
I wasn't aware of define*-public. I have to inverstigate ...
> ("xxx" "yyy") without quoting the list is likely a bad idea since it
> would require define-bar-type to be a macro, and that's probably
> uncalled for.  But probably keyword arguments with single strings will
> work well enough.
Yes. So you propose we use the glyph stacking mechanism
of the current interface and have a user-friendly layer that
allows for giving that bar-line set an arbitrary name?

Phew, looks like some work to do...
> > As Janek pointed out some months ago, he wanted to be able
> > to define separate span-bar types on-the-fly, so we probably
> > should end up with something like
> >
> > (define-bar-type "|:"
> >     ".|:" :prebreak "|" :postbreak ".|:"
> >     :spanbar ".|" :spanbar-prebreak "|" :spanbar-postbreak ".|")
> >
> > ?
> Looks reasonable.  The keyword arguments are a mouthful to type, but I
> think they make things quite more readable.
Yes. I don't think that users will generate myriads of bar lines, and
I'd prefer having to type some more letters to getting the
arguments into the correct order:

(define-bar-type "|:" '(".|:" "|" ".|:") '(".| " "|" ".| "))

is way shorter, but less obvious.

Marc
>