Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2584 in lilypond: please make partcombine merge slurs

[lilypond]

Updates:
        Labels: -Patch-review Patch-needs_work

Comment #18 on issue 2584 by address@hidden: please make partcombine  
merge slurs
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2584

Yes. I do think all that, though with a decided lack of passion.

It was convenient that { <c e>(( d) c( <d f>)) } has been interpreted as  {  
<c e>( d) c( <d f>) }  because that lets the part-combiner we have result  
in correctly-merged slurs.

I had no opinion on grouping brackets, but since they do nest, \partcombine  
is doing an insufficient job combining them.  (\partcombine seems  
reasonably sophisticated about spanners--except when switching between  
Chords and Unisono--so a Scheme programmer might find it worthwhile to  
improve this area.)

I changed my mind a couple times whether this is an Enhancement or  
Regression.  Maybe nobody else has used LilyPond for anything extensive  
enough that they depend on \partcombine merging slurs.  I'd be content to  
see this re-re-categorized as Enhancement.

Issue 1967 is certainly not fixed.  The example at the head of this issue,  
the example of \partcombine in the manual, and any part-combining with  
phrasing slurs, still produce the spurious warnings that were the complaint  
of issue 1967.

Needs work, I think, because I think David's review comment means that the  
patch would fail to give a warning for the unmatched ) in cases like
  \relative c' { a( \appoggiatura g8 b) a \appoggiatura g8 b) }