Re: \mark and slur

[Rutger Hofman]

On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Rutger Hofman <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> > > My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of
> > > the note that directly precedes it.
> >
> > That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.

Yes, I understand. But still, I fear it is a steep hurdle for the 
uninitiated to understand that 'loose post-event'.

> > > > > GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
> > > > > Processing `sll.ly'
> > > > > Parsing...
> > > > > sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
> > > > >     \mark "X"
> > > > >               (c4) c c c
> >
> > If you have a better proposal for the error message, let fly.
>
> Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
> message for this input would be "SlurEvent".  Would
>
> > > > > sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent
> > > > >     \mark "X"
> > > > >               (c4) c c c
>
> be any better?  Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it
> harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)?
>
> > > > > sll.ly:4:13: warning: Cannot attach SlurEvent to preceding expression
> > > > >     \mark "X"
> > > > >               (c4) c c c

This one comes closest for me. I think it could be helpful to also 
explain that the 'preceding expression' is not a note, and that that is 
required for a SlurEvent/slur? Or is doing this for all possible error 
scenarios a lifetime job?

> or for brevity
>
> > > > > sll.ly:4:13: warning: unattachable SlurEvent
> > > > >     \mark "X"
> > > > >               (c4) c c c

But this is just me; maybe others have different feelings.

Rutger