|
From: | Rutger Hofman |
Subject: | Re: \mark and slur |
Date: | Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:09:57 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 |
On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:Rutger Hofman <address@hidden> writes:My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of the note that directly precedes it.That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.
Yes, I understand. But still, I fear it is a steep hurdle for the uninitiated to understand that 'loose post-event'.
GNU LilyPond 2.21.0 Processing `sll.ly' Parsing... sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event \mark "X" (c4) c c cIf you have a better proposal for the error message, let fly.Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Wouldsll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent \mark "X" (c4) c c cbe any better? Or not mention the expedient of <> at all (might make it harder for the user to figure out a workaround for his situation)?sll.ly:4:13: warning: Cannot attach SlurEvent to preceding expression \mark "X" (c4) c c c
This one comes closest for me. I think it could be helpful to also explain that the 'preceding expression' is not a note, and that that is required for a SlurEvent/slur? Or is doing this for all possible error scenarios a lifetime job?
or for brevitysll.ly:4:13: warning: unattachable SlurEvent \mark "X" (c4) c c c
But this is just me; maybe others have different feelings. Rutger
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |