Re: Please rewrite << { ... } \\ { ... } >> construct

[Xavier Scheuer]

On 8 November 2010 13:05, Valentin Villenave <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Please repost your mail as a comment there, I think it will be more
> appropriate, useful and (possibly) efficient :-)

Done.


David >
>
> Slurs, ties etc from outside to the second voice would still be
> forbidden.  The problem really is that Lilypond's notion of continuity
> (we have that also in repeat alternatives, codas and similar) is too
> naive.

It would be better, I did not mean "perfect".
By the way, I'm sure we could *always* find cases where it would not
work easily, and thus need a bad "workaround" such as using hidden
notes.  ;p


> The above would not solve it.  Some things would work, some things would
> not.  Depending on the voice they happen in.

Is it a reason to keep this "always-not-working"?


> So don't get your expectations too high about what gains can be expected
> from implementing that proposal.

I know the gains each time I think "I could have used a << \\ >>
construct if it worked as proposed here, but I can not use it now, so
I'll have to keep using explicitly instantiated voices".  And I grumble.
Count the number of times I grumble while entering a piano score and
you'll have an idea about "how high are my expectations about what gains
could be expected from implementing that proposal".


Phil >
>
> But if we simply said this in the docs it would make it clear it's at least
> possible.  For me, the most annoying aspect of this behaviour is that lyrics
> aren't continuous across the initial voice and the implicit voices, and when
> you're setting songs that's a real pain.

Yeah, I'm not used to typeset vocal scores, but in this case too it
would be really great (appreciated) if " \\ Did The Right Thing".

Cheers,
"Grumpy" Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>