Re: Changing voice order...

[tisimst]

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Abraham Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM, David Kastrup [via Lilypond] <[hidden email]> wrote:

Werner LEMBERG <[hidden email]> writes:

>> So
>> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour
>> becomes
>> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
>
> I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and
> \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write
>
>   \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo

Here is another variant that's a bit bold:

\voice^1 \voice_1 \voice^2 \voice_2

This will syntactically take a fingering event as input.  However, this
does not work as

\voices 1,2,-2,-1 << \\ ... \\ >>

does.  I am not totally sure whether \voices ^1^2_1_2 << \\ ... \\ >>
might not be parseable (as a single post-event) but it won't mix with
symbolic names for voice contexts.  So while it is a cute replacement
for \voiceOne ... and is expressive concerning its direction, I am not
sure it's a winner.

I like this idea. Here's another thought to throw into the mix, ...

By the way (and I believe there may have been some discussion about this previously, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now), why do we use \oneVoice instead of \voiceNeutral like we do with \tieNeutral, \tupletNeutral, etc. "\oneVoice" certainly stands out a little more (visually), but it's sure not consistent with the other commands of this nature. Just saying...

--

Abraham 

---

View this message in context: Re: Changing voice order...
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.