search

gregorio-project / gregorio

The Gregorio Project
http://gregorio-project.github.io
Other
160 stars 43 forks source link

"syntaxic sugar" for some fused glyphs #1013

Closed eroux closed 8 years ago

eroux commented 8 years ago

Solesmes uses the glyph (go@hd~) (a torculus liquescens with first note being an oriscus). The only way to get it now is through fusion, but it would be best if (gohd~) had the same output (using fusion behind the scenes). Maybe the same principle could be applied to the pes stratus of https://github.com/gregorio-project/gregorio/issues/898 ? Anyway, this is not a top priority.

eroux commented 8 years ago

Also, it seems Solesmes is using pes stratus too, so it will certainly be more common in the future, it would be best if (goho) was working too. We'll see how things go with 4.2, but it would be wonderful to have that in 4.2 too if possible... is it a lot of work or is it more reasonable than #898 ?

henryso commented 8 years ago

898 is an overhaul of the oriscus glyphs. Currently, the reverse-ness of an oriscus is relative to whether the following note is above or below in some of the cases. My intent is to remove this relative-ness for consistency. So instead of "oriscus" and "oriscus reversus", there will simply be "ascending oriscus" and "descending oriscus" (and, of course, "scapus" varieties).

The current glyphs will be rationalized to this naming and the missing glyphs will be added. For example, FlexusOriscusTwoNothing is currently only available with the descending oriscus, however its shape is what we currently call an "oriscus reversus". Contrast that to "PesQuassusTwoNothing", whose oriscus is the "non-reversus" oriscus. Sacrilege aside, two figures are missing, a "flexus oriscus" with an "ascending oriscus" and a "pes quassus" with a "descending oriscus". So I intend to come up with some sort of naming convention that will make all this consistent.

That is not a change to take lightly, and will probably take me a week or two to implement (given I work during the day).

Compared to that, this change (#1013, that is) is simply one of electing to fuse a glyph when certain branches of the state machine are hit, and is much less complex.

henryso commented 8 years ago

Should I draw pes stratus in the font (it would add 10 glyphs; we have about 860 left (not including these 10) after I add the missing glyphs for #868 and #972) or just depend on fusion for this figure?

eroux commented 8 years ago

Well, 10 glyphs is almost nothing, let's do it!

henryso commented 8 years ago

Question about the naming. It seems to be that a "pes stratus" is a pes followed by an oriscus. Is "pes stratus" the correct name for a "pes" using oriscus for both notes?

eroux commented 8 years ago

Oh... I have 0 clue about that... if it's a "Nocturnale Romanum-ism", maybe we can call it NRPesStratus? I'll ask my contacts about that, but you can use this as a temporary name I think...

henryso commented 8 years ago

While you're asking, can you check if Solesmes's usage of "pes stratus" means the pes-followed-by-oriscus or the oriscus-followed-by-oriscus? If not the latter, I think I would opt to just use fusion for these shapes.

eroux commented 8 years ago

Sure!

eroux commented 8 years ago

So, for Solesmes, a pes stratus is a punctum fused with an oriscus above, no queue (the form in the NR doesn't correspond very well to the adiastematic shape apparently), so (fhO) is a pes stratus for them. So yes, fusion for the NR form is fine, sorry for mixing everything!

henryso commented 8 years ago

Given that clarification, since the NR form will not come into more common use (and moreso doesn't conform to a nondiastematic shape), I will leave out the "syntactic sugar" for it. It means less to maintain (and fewer potential bugs to fix).

eroux commented 8 years ago

sure, sounds good