[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Re: Ticket 450

Hi David, hi Knut, hi all.

On 2017-01-31 12:31, David Kastrup wrote:

"David Kastrup" address@hidden address@hidden writes:

"Alexander Kobel" address@hidden <mailto:address@hidden>
writes:

    Forced extenders are required for some manual tweaks or, again,
    special purposes such as lone notes before volta repeats, where an
    extender into the second repeat bracket needs to be indicated. (BTW,
    there have been wishes that the mutually exclusive |collapse-length|
    and |forced-length| are not merged into one property.)

I'll have to read up on it.

Sure; that's all I wanted to achieve.

    Starting from scratch, I'd opt for translating the |__| token to
    forced extenders. However, a reinterpretation of |__| was not
    well-received.

It isn't an actual reinterpretation as far as I see it: by setting the
equivalent of no-extenders you'll get back the previous behavior
exactly.

Ah, okay; I misunderstood your proposal there.

    Also, ignoring and deprecating |__| for a while leaves lyrics (with
    manual extenders) compatible between 2.19.55+some and earlier (in
    particular, 2.18.x) versions.

Where do you see any incompatibility in my proposal.

None (yet); I guess after the earlier discussion about the \tweak ...
syntax in the snippet, I was misled to think that you want to give a new
meaning to .
I just want to save you time and make sure that you don't miss some
design goals of the previous proposal that likely should be considered
in any new version.

    Again, all these points have been discussed in a heap of mails on
    -devel end of 2016. Just to make sure we are on the same page.

I'll read up on it. Sorry for this mess.
Ok, I read up about half of it. This is embarrassing since Knut's
original design and thoughts were a lot closer to what I would have
considered good practice than what he let himself be persuaded to
change. So I cannot really blame him and others for being miffed at my
very late start into that issue.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not miffed by any means - sorry if
that's the impression I made. And I assume that I'm #2 after Knut in the
involvement list for this issue, with some noticeable gap.

When reading those discussions, I go somewhat like

ok, good, ok, bad idea, good, why?, good, what?, well if you do that you
sort of have to, ok, ok...

So the problem is that there is really no good way to hook into those
discussions after the fact and let them converge on something else.
Particularly when that "something else" was already almost there.

I think I have a fairly good understanding of the user perspective, some
idea about the implementability, but by no means a clear picture of the
architectural implications or the long-term trouble that a specific
choice of implementation might cause. And I definitely know that you are
the one I trust the most in that regard.

I'll be able to justify most of my proposals (or step back from them),
but it's really bad that I made others waste time, effort, planning,
focus, persuasion on different plans.

No need to apologize as far as I'm concerned. First, I'm not in a hurry
here. Second, I trust that you have reasons beyond my horizon, and that
you're not jumping on the wagon out of sadistic or masochistic motivation.

I'm happy to offer my help if you want a summary of design goals and/or
UI considerations that arose during the past weeks. (By the way: also
via phone, if that's a reasonable option for you.) And I'll try not to
comment on the backend... ;-)

I don't know how to get this back on track in a manner where everybody
involved feels good about the work he did on this issue.

Don't worry - I hope there's no reason.

Cheers,
Alexander

[issues:#4509] Enhancement: automatically engrave lyric extenders

Status: Started
Created: Sat Jul 18, 2015 03:23 AM UTC by Anonymous
Last Updated: Tue Jan 31, 2017 06:58 PM UTC
Owner: Alexander Kobel
Attachments:

Selection_005.png (263.8 kB; image/png)

Originally created by: *anonymous

Originally created by: address@hidden

Actually, this is a content vs. presentation issue. The current approach has lyric extenders ‘hardcoded’ within the lyricmode input, whereas often it depends on layout whether I want an extender printed or not:
– In tight horizontal spacing, we might not need an extender, but when spacing is stretched, it might become necessary. This can come through different (page/line) breaking, parallel contexts present only in some editions (part vs. score), Completion_heads_engraver (mensural without barlines/transcription with barlines).
– Long syllables might not need an extender, where short syllables do.
– Often, all voices share the same text, but have extenders in different places. If extenders need not be given explicitly, the lyricmode input code can be reused much easier.

After all, the extenders don’t add any additional meaning, but only serve to improve legibility in such cases where they do.

This would require:
– Recognising the end of a word by absence of a hyphen.
– Comparing printed length of the melisma notes vs. the syllable, likely after line breaking. After all, extenders will never influence horizontal spacing. They might, however, affect vertical spacing. (unless we chose to omit (or shift) the extender in that case?)
– Personally, I think very short extenders shouldn’t be printed. There should be some kind of threshold.
It’s also one of the usecases where a proper representation of a ‘lyric word’ would be helpful, along with issue 2458.

Possibly related:
issue 4098

Version 2.12 had this listed as a Known issue.

https://codereview.appspot.com/313240043 )

Sent from sourceforge.net because address@hidden is subscribed to https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/

To unsubscribe from further messages, a project admin can change settings at https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/admin/issues/options. Or, if this is a mailing list, you can unsubscribe from the mailing list.

From:	Auto mailings of changes to Lily Issues
Subject:	[Lilypond-auto] [LilyIssues-auto] [testlilyissues:issues] Re: Ticket 4509 discussion
Date:	Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:26:10 +0000