Re: tablature.ly - please test and comment

[Neil Puttock]

2009/5/23 Marc Hohl <address@hidden>:
> Neil Puttock schrieb:

>> Since none of this works properly (I suspect it will require more than
>> Scheme hacking to get everything working), I don't think it's suitable
>> for inclusion.
>>
>>
>
> Hm, I guess you're right - but as a compromise, how about letting the
> \clearTabTieBreaks as a default, because it is working most of the time, and
> when someone needs a more sophisticated tab staff, he has to write a
> separate
> score for the tablature?
>
> I would propose to rename it as
>
> #(define (tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers grob)
>       (let* ((tied-fret-nr (ly:spanner-bound grob RIGHT)))
>             (ly:grob-set-property! tied-fret-nr 'transparent #t)))
>
> make it default by
>
> \override Tie #'after-line-breaking = #tie::handle-tied-fret-numbers
>
> and use this as a kind of starting point for future improvements?

Oh go on then.  As long as you promise to leave out \markTabTieBreaks. :)

>> I'm concerned about the amount of duplication here; this basically
>> repeats all the code in \tabNumbersOnly, which is really something we
>> should try to avoid in included files.
>>
>
> But how to avoid this? One possibility would be to just get rid of the
> \tabNumbersOnly, because I don't think that tablatures with and
> without stems will ever be mixed together in a file, and when someone wants
> to do so, he can \override everything manually.

I think that's the only option available, since there's no way of
inserting identifiers into a context definition.

Regards,
Neil