Re: 2.16 release candidate 3 imminent

[Marc Hohl]

Am 21.01.2012 20:17, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> On 1/21/12 11:47 AM, "Marc Hohl"<address@hidden>  wrote:
>
> > > > I must admit that I am lost here and do not quite understand what's
> > > > going on,
> > > > but will there be any difference between
> > > >
> > > > <   c\3 e\2 g\1>   and<   c e g>\3\2\1
> > > >
> > > > once these changes are implemented?
> > > The latter would not display anything anywhere.
> > Great!
> I'm not sure you actually will find it great (although I think it is more
> consistent).
>
> If we don't want to have string numbers show up in the music, but we need
> them for the tabstaff, right now we can do
>
> <c e g>\3\2\1
>
> In the future,<c e g>\3\2\1 won't assign the string numbers to the
> tabstaff.  (And in fact, I can't find this usage documented in the NR).
Yes, I stumbled upon it while we were discussing some other problems
concerning tablature, and I used this method to prevent the sting numbers
showing up.

\override StringNumber #'stencil = ##f

yielded in errors (but I think this has changed recently), and simply
setting

\override StringNumber #'transparent = ##t

still influenced the spacing for obvious reasons.
> Instead, as would be done regularly in lilypond, we would do
>
> \once \override StringNumber #'stencil = ##f
> <c\3 e\2 g\1>
>
> This is consistent with how things are handled in lilypond, so I think we
> ought to move in this direction.
As setting the stencil to false seems to work now, I agree with you that 
this is the
more lilypondish way to go.

Thanks for your explanations!

Regards,

Marc