Re: Strange message with autochange

[George_]

James Bailey-4 wrote:
> 
> I'm still not convinced that the autochanger was ever meant to be   
> mixed with the manual changer. It seems that, if anything, the bug is   
> that it's possible to have manual staff changes whilst using the   
> autochanger. 
> 
I disagree. Once again citing my hypothetical 500-bar fugue, it seems
incomprehensible to me that there should not be a compromise between the
autochange function and manual staff changes. It just blows my mind that
something so feature-rich as Lilypond should skimp on such a simple and
intuitively straighforward idea.


I actually wouldn't call that a bug. I would call it the intended   
> behavior. The autochanger looks to where it will put the next note,   
> then places the previous rest on the same staff. 
Even when it resists all efforts to move it to where I want it to go?

On that note (no pun intended) using a spacer rest (r16*1/2 s16*1/2) screws
up the barcheck for the rest of the piece.


Xavier Scheuer wrote:
> 
> From what I understand it is just because "The staff switches may not
> end up in optimal places" (listen, /with the automatic behaviour/).
> But if you can mix manual and automatic, then you can get over it.
Agreed. The impression the docs give is certainly not one where I'm clear on
the fact that either I leave it completely up to \autochange, or the staff
changes are completely specified manually by me. And while both extremes may
be useful in the short snippets that are in the docs, they are much less
practical for the long, multivoice pieces that many Lilypond users would
like to engrave.
-- 
View this message in context: 
http://old.nabble.com/Strange-message-with-autochange-tp27710824p27740196.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.