Re: \segno is an articulation?

[Thomas Morley]

Am Sa., 27. Feb. 2021 um 00:32 Uhr schrieb Dan Eble <dan@faithful.be>:
>
> LilyPond currently has commands \segno, \coda, and \varcoda, which create 
> articulations.  I'm looking for encouragement and approval to repurpose 
> \segno and \coda as section delimiters.  If I don't get it, my new commands 
> will have to be named something like \segnoSection and \codaSection.
>
> To use \segno and \coda, I would have to rename the existing commands, but 
> I'm not sure what would make the most sense.  \segnoArticulation, 
> \codaArticulation, and \varcodaArticulation would get the job done, but the 
> name of a technique would fit better with the rest of the articulations.  Do 
> these symbols have standard meanings when used as articulations in some 
> domain?  (I ask myself: In that case, why would they have their current 
> names? but I hope...)
>
> Regards,
> —
> Dan
>
>

Hi Dan,

my two cents:
In a _musical_ sense, signs like coda and segno are not articulations.
Same holds for up/downBow, fermata and several others. legato _is_ an
articulation, though.

In LilyPond it's a mess.
For legato we have an own grob, Slur. And all other signs from
script.scm are _made_ articulations (by (make-articulation "...")),
regardless whether they are articulations in a musical sense or not.
Iiuc, finally they are all different "styles" of the Script-grob.

Imho, it would be an advantage to disentangle this a bit...
I don't see an inner problem, if we simply redefine \segno etc to
"styles" of new SectionGrob. Or if not for a for grob, then for
marking sections.
It would likely break older user-code, ofcourse.

How about changing segno with it's current definition to segnoSign, as
David suggested and adding a convert-rule.
And in the next LilyPond-devel-release add \segno with a new definition?
Will not be perfect, though...

Cheers,
  Harm