Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by address@hidden)

[tdanielsmusic]

https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode623
> > > scm/define-markup-commands.scm:623: (direction DOWN)
> > > Should this markup command be called "undertie" or should it
rather be
> "tie",
> > > with "undertie" explicitly overriding `direction'?
> > >
> > > Because the rather explicit name '\undertie' seems a bit
inconsistent with
> the
> > > behavior of
> > >
> > > {
> > >   c'1^\markup \undertie hm
> > > }
> > >
> > > where the direction is determined by the direction specified for
the
> > TextScript.
> >
> > Hm, this was _not_ intended.
> > In this case a Tie _below_ the arg should be printed. For ties above
the arg
> > \overtie was defined.
> >
> > Though, thinking (a little) about it, we could go for
> > a)
> > two commands (under- and overtie) independant from
direction-modifiers
> > or
> > b)
> > one tie-markup-command letting the user specify direction via
\override
> > (direction . ...) and/or direction-modifiers

> c)
> a tie-command, with under/overtie derived from it.
> I think that was your proposal.

> >
> > I'm undecided for now, opinions?

In the example above:
    c'1^\markup \undertie hm
the direction modifier should indicate the placement of the markup
relative to the staff, surely.  The placement of the tie relative to the
text needs to be specified independently of the direction modifier, so
\undertie and \overtie are needed for this.  I don't like \tie;
\undertie is consistent with \underline.  (OK, so we don't have
\overline, but we could.)



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/