lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Changing voice order...


From: Trevor Daniels
Subject: Re: Changing voice order...
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 21:34:00 -0000

David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM

>  I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
> as well.  The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...  

I definitely object to this.  The meaning and use of the \voicexxx
predefs is engrained in the habits and memory of many, most?, of the
long-standing LP users, as well as pretty well all existing code.  
Changing the way the << .. \\ .. >> construct works is one thing, 
one I could perhaps be persuaded to accept, but renaming the \voicexxx 
constructs would be a major change which is far from justified by the
current rather minor issue - one that has hardly, if ever, figured in
user queries, probably because anyone needing more than two voices
would almost certainly code them explicitly, as 1,3,5 .. 6,4,2 - the
way clearly set out in the manuals, with the numbers corresponding to
the rank of the shifts.

"Kieren MacMillan"  wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:52 PM

> Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named, 
> might I recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have 
> custom functions called "splitX" (workhorses in my code), which 
> remove the need for me to remember how to code such things:

   [pseudocode:]
   \splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
   \splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with 
DOWN }
   \splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic 
\with DOWN }
   etc.

This approach looks much less invasive and quite intuitive.  Worth
exploring further, I think.

Trevor

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]