[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 01:14:02 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.e.1.180613 |
On 7/15/18, 6:53 PM, "Simon Albrecht" <address@hidden> wrote:
On 16.07.2018 02:51, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 7/15/18, 3:29 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of David Kastrup"
<address@hidden on behalf of address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I just noticed that it’s possible to use the LilyPond symbol
list/key
> > list syntax when setting melismaBusyProperties. However, the doc
> > string reads
> >
> > "A list of properties (symbols) to determine whether a melisma is
playing.
> > Setting this property will influence how lyrics are aligned to
notes.
> > For example, if set to @code{'(melismaBusy beamMelismaBusy)},
> > only manual melismata and manual beams are considered.
> > Possible values include @code{melismaBusy}, @code{slurMelismaBusy},
> > @code{tieMelismaBusy}, and @code{beamMelismaBusy}."
> >
> > Would we want to change the first code example to
> >
> > @code{melismaBusy,beamMelismaBusy}
> >
> > or otherwise suggest the new syntax?
>
> Feel free to do so, I think. It's not really a change of syntax
> specifically for melismaBusyProperties so I'd likely not mess with
the
> descriptions when they talk about "symbol list" or whatever. Instead
> I'd just change the examples.
>
> I don't think we should change the doc string. IIUC, the property
actually is a list. But we can set it using LilyPond syntax, as well as Scheme
syntax. So I agree that it should shown in the examples, but the docstring
should not be changed.
What examples do you mean?
Apparently, there are none. So I guess that if we want to move in this
direction, we should add a docs tagged snippet that shows the property being
set.
Or alternatively, we should just leave it as is.
Thanks,
Carl
- melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Simon Albrecht, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Carl Sorensen, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Simon Albrecht, 2018/07/15
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax,
Carl Sorensen <=
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Thomas Morley, 2018/07/16
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/16
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, Thomas Morley, 2018/07/16
- Re: melismaBusyProperties: scheme syntax vs. lily syntax, David Kastrup, 2018/07/16