Re: repeatTie question

[David Kastrup]

Lukas-Fabian Moser <lfm@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> (I hope I don't start a discussion orthogonal to the actual topic:)
>
>> I don't think this is the right place – \laissezVibrer is not related
>> to repeats at all.
>
> That's something I have been wondering for some time now: There seem
> to be two semantically very different ideas relating to ties to/from
> nothing, namely:
>
> - as an articulation: Obvious for \laissezVibrer from the name, but
>   might also be conceivable as some esoteric form of "dal niente" for
>   \repeatTie
>
> - as a special construction for ties cut in half by repeat barlines
>   (which might also be needed for slurs and phrasing slurs, for that
>  matter).
>
> At the moment, \laissezVibrer and \repeatTie form a geometrically
> symmetric pair, so to speak, but the names are distinctly
> non-symmetrical, one name emphasizing the use as an articulation, the
> other the use in a repeat situation.
>
> Wouldn't it, in the interest of semantically "correct" coding, more
> natural to have distinct commands
>
> - for articulation: a pair of \laissezVibrer and (e.g.) \tieFromNothing
>
> - for repeats: a pair of (e.g.) \openingTie & \closingTie or
>   \tieToRepeat & \tieFromRepeat ?

One thing about \laissezVibrer vs a repeat-ending semitie is that the
look may be the same, but the Midi rendition (or some MusicXML
conversion) should clearly be different.

-- 
David Kastrup