Re: Broken glissandi?

[Thomas Morley]

2016-03-21 11:50 GMT+01:00 Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:
> On 21.03.2016 10:37, Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> Opposed to the regtest glissando-broken-unkilled.ly the first part of
>> a broken glissandi does not anticipate the pitch on the next line, if
>> Staffs are changed.
>>
>> \version "2.19.38"
>>
>> \paper { line-width = 50 }
>>
>> lower =
>> \relative c'' {
>>    \override Glissando #'breakable = ##t
>>    \override Glissando #'after-line-breaking = ##t
>
>
> I wonder why this is necessary. Neil Puttock claims (in issue 663,
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/663/#4e4a>) that “glissandi
> and voice followers aren't shown following a line break”, but doesn’t give
> any rationale.

His post was from 2008-08-31, where he wrote:
"This is invalid; glissandi and voice followers aren't shown following
a line break.
See the comments in Line_spanner::print () for the rationale behind this. ..."

The comment he refers to was:
  /*
    We remove the line at the start of the line.  For piano voice
    indicators, it makes no sense to have them at the start of the
    line.

    I'm not sure what the official rules for glissandi are, but
    usually the 2nd note of the glissando is "exact", so when playing
    from the start of the line, there is no need to glide.

    From a typographical p.o.v. this makes sense, since the amount of
    space left of a note at the start of a line is very small.

    --hwn.

  */

Was deleted later.


> It doesn’t seem reasonable to me, so I’d vote for reopening
> the issue and making the default behave like it now behaves with the above
> after-line-breaking override.
> Any opinions?
>

I have no strong opinion on this topic.
What says Gould? (Still don't own it)

Cheers,
  Harm