Re: Bar lines

[Thomas Morley]

2013/3/6 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

> If I understand correctly, the barline definition commands basically
> have two arguments.  The first part is the name for accessing a bar
> line, the second is a breakdown of the look for it in-line, at start of
> line, at end of line.

No, not exactly.
>From Nr: \defineBarLine bartype #'(end begin span)
You could say bartype is the name to be used with \bar "whatever"
_and_ the unbroken behaviour, i.e. in the middle of a line.
The second argument defines the appearance at line-end, line-begin and
the spanbar (!)

>
> I have no qualms with the breakdown of the look being a very literal
> form of WYSIWYG.  For this breakdown of the look, "." is a weird thing
> to use.  It is not really WYSIWYG here.
>
> However, the reference string for \bar "xxx" is the user interface.  In
> this instance, we should aim for "xxx" being logical.
>
> "|." is logical, "the barline at the end of a sentence".  "|:" and ":|"
> are logical.  At the end of the piece, ":|." would also be logical.
> ":|:" is logical, "||" is logical.  Some variants with additional bars
> also make sense, like "||:" to indicate a double bar followed by a
> repeat, or a double repeat bar.  Something like ":||:" no longer is
> purely logical (as its logical function to separate two repeats from
> another is identical to that of ":|:"), but it is a reasonably intuitive
> for calling for a visual variant.
>
> I think that if we depart from the notion that the bar name for \bar
> should always correspond to the WYSIWYG definition of the in-line
> rendition, and thus separate the logical user interface from the purely
> visual definition of the resulting look, we will keep the aesthetics of
> both users and programmers reasonably unoffended.
>
> --
> David Kastrup

Well, as I mentioned in my previous mail, it seems not easy to find a
recognizable, logical and intuitive understandable coding-style.


-Harm