Re: Bar lines

[Thomas Morley]

2013/3/6 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Am 06.03.2013 02:59, schrieb Thomas Morley:
>>> 2013/3/5 Noeck <address@hidden>:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I tried the (relatively) new bar line interface:
>>>> \version "2.17.12"
>>>> \defineBarLine "|:" #'(":||" "" "|:")   % a)
>>>> \defineBarLine ":||" #'(":.." "" " ||") % b)
>>>>
>>>> \new StaffGroup <<
>>>>    \new Staff { a1 \bar "|:" a \bar "|:" }
>>>>    \new Staff { f'1 f' }
>>>> I have four questions:
>>>>
>>>> 1) When using definition in line a), LilyPond complains about a missing
>>>> span bar line style. Should I add line b) to define it?
>>>>
>>>> 2) Is the space in " ||" right in line  b) to align the span bar lines
>>>> properly?
>>> Hi Joram,
>>>
>>> I'll try to answer your first two questions while demonstrating a step
>>> by step example.
>> Hi Harm,
>>
>> kudos for this detailed explanation! I wonder if the documentation about
>> bar lines should be enhanced in this way, or is there a place where this
>> information can be stored and made available for all users?
>
> It is orthogonal to us making \bar "|:" and \bar ":|" well-defined by
> letting : automatically imply a thick bar since nothing else makes
> sense.
>
> We don't want to point users having a simple understandable problem to
> an explanation for a large problem complex, no matter how good that
> explanation is.
>
> We are using things like "|:" and ":|" because they are semi-WYSIWYG and
> thus intuitive.  If people write repeats in non-formal ASCII lyrics,
> like "we'll see this problem, |: time and again :|", they will not write
> .|: or :|. since only typesetters realize that repeat signs at the end
> of a piece are indistinguishable from normal repeat signs.

You mentioned your concerns before (can't find it right now), though,
personally I see no _coding-problem_.

Well, I might be biased, because, although Marc did the major work, I
spent a lot of time and work on the new barline-interface, too.

But ofcourse you're right here:
a)
In a text I'd write
p.e
  "
   This is the "Barform":
   |: Stollen :|
     Abgesang
  "
b)
The present barline-interface is "pure" WYSIWYG

c)
The first for any user noticable novelty is the change from \bar ":|"
to \bar ":|."
dito for other repeat-signs.
This is covered by a convert-rule.



Ok, you'd prefer processing ":|" as colon-thin-thick-barline with no
need for a converting-rule.
Well, here I think different: I do like the "pure" WYSIWYG-approach
and I'm not convinced that a semi-WYSIWYG-approach would really be
more intuitive.

What do other users/developers think?
Can we reach a consensus?

>
> Do we really need to give _every_ _single_ person on the user list the
> same advice, again and again?

My first thought would be: Let us improve the documentation.

>
> While it is quite more efficient to condense it in the manual and point
> to that, pointing every single user to this manual section is going to
> get old as well.

Well, yes, though, every new code which is expected to be used by
every LilyPond-user will need some time before it is fully understood
and excepted. It was (and sometimes is) the same with the
beaming-rules and spacing-procedures introduced with 2.14.

>
> After telling enough people "the problem is actually simple, it is just
> you who are incompetent", maybe we should think twice about what we have
> to gain by making LilyPond users feel incompetent.

I never wrote or intended that!!
If any user feels offended by the style/manner of my explanation I
very much apologize.

I did it the step-by-step-most-simple way, because I hoped that all
users, even LilyPond-starters, will read _and_ understand it.

>
> I don't see a compelling technical reason not to cater to this
> particular naive expectation.
>
> --
> David Kastrup


-Harm