Re: Changing voice order...

[David Kastrup]

David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:

> Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>>>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >>
>>>>
>>>>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order:
>>>>
>>>>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ...
>>>>
>>>>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to
>>>>bottom, assignments should be more like
>>>>
>>>>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ...
>>>>
>>>>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices.  Now I
>>>>am sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty
>>>>disruptive to existing scores.  Even though I don't know how many
>>>>really use the original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally.
>>>>
>>>>Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I
>>> usually use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it
>>> disturbing that I can't define the voices from top to bottom but
>>> have to apply a seemingly wrong ordering.
>>
>> I think we must not change the original commands.  However, we could
>> introduce another series of commands that do the numbering from top to
>> bottom.  A possibility would be \voice + roman numeral: \voiceI,
>> \voiceII, \voiceIII, etc.  Or what about \voice.1, \voice.2, ...?
>
> Werner, that does not even make sense.  The reason \voiceOne
> ... \voiceTwo need to be the inner voices is because they have the
> smallest shifts and those need to be in the middle in order to let up-
> and downstem heads not move apart ridiculously far when they are usually
> close in pitch.  There is a reason you have to use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo
> from the middle.

I was wrong on the details, but still: \voiceII would have no way to
know whether or not \voiceIII and \voiceIV also existed, and it would
need to behave entirely differently depending on that.

-- 
David Kastrup