Re[2]: \breakDynamicSpan in a Dynamics context?

[musicus]

Perfectly right in my opinion!
Of course, the current layout is already based on objects relative to 
certain other objects (in other words: polar coordinates), but the 
possibilities to tweak a position is mostly limited to basic 
X-/Y-offsets to ONE specific object.

I think the ultimate goal of Lilypond is to provide the best output as 
possible by default
(with as little as possible tweaks to the code in order to provide a 
good textual representation of the musical content)
and to be able to get a stable flexibility concerning staff-size/ 
paper-size/ breaks/ spacing-increment... (ideally comparable to text 
scaling of ebooks)
with as little and easy as possible tweaks/ overrides, which should 
always reflect its logical rule.
I highly appreciate the hard work of the contributors to this already 
great software, which made the (in most areas very good) current state 
possible.


 So, if you wanted to place a mezzoforte in between two notes (or a 
notehead and any other object) you could define a rule like:

(ObjectA_Y-coordinate + ObjectB_Y-coordinate) / 2

or a little more interesting (extendable to all mathematical 
correlations)
(2*ObjectA_Y-coordinate + ObjectB_Y-coordinate) / 3


Finally you write

[...]
{ a4\Anchor1
  -\tweak polarcoordinates #'( Anchor1 . Anchor2 . 
(Anchor1_Y+Anchor2_Y)/2 )
\mf
b c d }
[...]
{ a\Anchor2( b c d) }
[...]


The best solution would be to maintain the structural representation
{ a4 b c d } [...] { a( b c d) }
and to add the layout tweaks of the default output via edition-engraver


I hope my thoughts are not too bad explained :)
Please excuse my mistakes with scheme and so on...i guess i have some 
syntax errors here (in this theoretical consideration).

Best regards,
musicus


> Hi all,
>
> musicus wrote:
> >  +1 for the edition-engraver,
>
> =)
>
> >  but it's not possible to reflect the actual structure of connected 
> > dynamics…
>
> Oh, I agree: Just as there are \noBreak, \noBeam, etc., there should be 
> general \connect and \split options "between” arbitrary grobs. I just 
> have no idea what I’m talking about when I say that kind of thing.  ;)
>
> >  I imagine a way of positioning objects relative to any other object.
> >  (this feature could be a nice workaround solution for most 
> > positioning bugs)
>
> Yes! Without breaking a sweat, I could probably list thirty 
> “grob-pairings” that would benefit from this. Right off the bat, it 
> would be great to “link” a RehearsalMark with a MetronomeMark at the 
> same moment; currently, I have to [edition-]adjust the 
> extra-spacing-width of one or both *and* the X- or Y-offset(s) [or 
> both].
>
> David wrote:
> >  LilyPond already positions all of its objects relative to other 
> > objects.
>
> Well, yes… But (as far as I know) there is no “hard-link” between most 
> grobs, analogous to the one between a Hairpin and the [immediately] 
> following DynamicText. Happy to be proven wrong, though!
>
> Thanks,
> Kieren.
> ________________________________
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: address@hidden