[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       lilypond-user
Subject:    RE: EVENT_IDENTIFIER using \grace
From:       "Christophe GODEFROY" <cgodefro () free ! fr>
Date:       2017-05-27 14:20:19
Message-ID: 000b01d2d6f4$5f751a80$1e5f4f80$ () free ! fr
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks david, I will try to adapt my  way of writing

Christophe

-----Message d'origine-----
De=A0: David Kastrup [mailto:dak@gnu.org] =

Envoy=E9=A0: samedi 27 mai 2017 15:51
=C0=A0: Christophe GODEFROY <cgodefro@free.fr>
Cc=A0: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Objet=A0: Re: EVENT_IDENTIFIER using \grace

"Christophe GODEFROY" <cgodefro@free.fr> writes:

> Thanks David for your message.
>
> You are correct the issue was from the []. You point me to the issue =

> The correct code is
>
> \context Voice { d8. ([\grace {e32 (d cis d)} e16]) \appoggiatura eis =

> fis2}

Again: the way you arrange your input makes it look like you expect ([ to
apply to \grace ... rather than the preceding d8.  And

([...]) looks like the expectation that those constructs _nest_ in some
manner which they don't.  Written more in the manner in which it works it
would be

\new Voice { d8.([ \grace { e32( d cis d) } e16]) \appogiatura eis16 fis2 }

The results will be the same, of course.  But you are likely not doing
yourself a favor by formatting your input in a manner that matches your
sense of aesthetics better than the underlying realities: while it doesn't
make a difference to LilyPond, it may lead you to wrong conclusions.  It may
also make it harder for you to find "suitable"
input for constructs like

c( d)( e)

which you would likely then write as

c (d) (e)

which only looks more symmetric but isn't.  And does not behave well when
combined with other constructs, like you discovered.

--
David Kastrup


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]