Re: staccato dots and slurs in second voice

[David Nalesnik]

Hi Jay,

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM, Jay Anderson <address@hidden> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 5:14 PM, David Nalesnik
<address@hidden> wrote:
> It's definitely possible!  Using a pointer to a ScriptColumn, the X-offset
> callback for Script can be modified to (1) center staccatos over the stem if
> no other articulations are present; (2) center them over the note head if
> multiple articulations are present.  I'll go over this some more, and if all
> goes well I should have a patch up for discussion.

From another recent message:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00509.html.
Is toward-stem-shift not the right thing to change instead of
X-offset?

That's effectively what I'm doing.  I'm changing the X-offset callback because it's only there that the property toward-stem-shift is read (see scm/output-lib.scm).  The trick is allowing two different concurrent values for toward-stem-shift: 1.0 for when the staccato is alone, 0.0 when other articulations are present (like a portato)   In my experiment, I simply did what the engraver does regarding toward-stem-shift.

Maybe there ought to be another property, held by staccato and staccatissimo--something that locks staccatos in tandem with any other articulations present.  By default, the staccato and anything else would be linked.  Who knows, someone might want to fool with toward-stem-shift of the staccato in a column, and I'm not wild about the sleight-of-hand I described above.

 

Making something like this the default behavior would be great (the
above I think is a modified version of something you, David, created
in the past). The current lilypond default of 0.5 for toward-stem-shif
for staccato doesn't make much sense to me.

So you would propose 1.0 as the default, and the user could override to 0.5 if they wanted the current default behavior?

 

A fix for this should also
take into account other articulations that behave like staccato
(staccatissimo, stopped (I've seen this one both ways), etc.)

That would be no problem. 

--David