Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 3363 in lilypond: Scripts misplaced with cross-staff slurs

[lilypond]

Comment #12 on issue 3363 by address@hidden: Scripts misplaced with  
cross-staff slurs
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3363

Well, "defining terms" is not really useful if the underlying concepts  
don't match realities.  We have pure/unpure as independent/dependent from  
linebreaking, and crossstaff as we-can't-really-decide from linebreaking.   
But something like a staccato dot could not care less about linebreaking:  
it depends on the material it references.  We are not doing ourselves in  
expressing every dependency in terms of before/after linebreaking.  In  
particular since there are things like linebreaking depending on  
accidentals, and accidentals can depend on linebreaking again (a tied note  
gets a repeat accidental only after a line break).

This won't help us for this issue, but it might make sense for things like  
staccato dots to inherit their cross-staff property from their x-parent  
(assuming that the actual note is marked as cross-staff).  Do we really  
need to know this for staccato dots?

--
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings