Re: R\fermata: How to build a markup in C++?

[Malte Meyn]

Am 19.04.19 um 19:50 schrieb Dan Eble:
> On Apr 16, 2019, at 06:58, Malte Meyn <address@hidden> wrote:
> > In all these cases \fermata behaves the same as \fermataMarkup, because both 
> > simply create a MultiMeasureRestText. It’s placed on the first measure of 
> > expanded MMRs
>
>
> Is that the most reasonable result or should it be treated as a known issue?  
> Wouldn’t it be more logical for an expanded R1*3\fermata to be engraved like R1 
> R1 R1\fermata?

I don’t think that it would be more logical; two thoughts on that:

1. You probably wouldn’t use fermatas on compressed multi-measure rests 
but instead spell them out because otherwise the player would not know 
which measures are affected:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%
{
  \compressFullBarRests

  R1*3\fermata    % IMO unlikely
  R1*2 R1\fermata % clearer
  R1\fermata R1*2 % clearer

  % and a player could even interpret it as
  R1\fermata R\fermata R\fermata
}
%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
So if you wouldn’t write R1*3\fermata with compressed rests, why would 
you with expanded ones? → The default placement is irrelevant.

2. Texts like “Allegro” or “ritardando” or “change to piccolo” on 
compressed multi-measure should be placed on the first measure if expanded:
%%%%%%%% BEGIN %%%%%%%%
{
  R1*3-"ritardando"

  \compressFullBarRests
  R1*3-"ritardando"
}
%%%%%%%%% END %%%%%%%%%
I think that it would be good to have consistent behaviour of scripts 
(like \fermata) and text scripts (like -"ritardando"). → The default 
placement of MultiMeasureRestScripts should be the same as for 
MultiMeasureRestTexts as it currently is.