Re: \mark and slur

[David Kastrup]

Noeck <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
>> warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
>
> I would understand it best if the warning said any of:
>
> Cannot attach slur to preceding expression
> Slur is not attached to note or chord
> Cannot attach slur to note or chord
> No note or chord before this slur to attach it to (is that English?)
> No note or chord is preceeding this slur
>
>
> post-event or SlurEvent sounds too technical for me.

They are intentionally technical.  post-event is a literal text,
SlurEvent would depend on the actual event in question.

> But I don't know if the above wording would be general enough. Is
> "note or chord" correct or just one (perhaps most frequent) case?

Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics
or multimeasure rest.  Something like that.

> Can a SlurEvent be something else than a slur? Is there a benefit of
>  calling it SlurEvent instead of slur?

Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio
or articulation or beam or beam forbid or bendafter or crescendo or
decrescendo or episema or, well, the alphabet is long yet.

SlurEvent has the advantage that it is a property of the music
expression one can get and print comparatively easy.

-- 
David Kastrup