James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 02/06/14 17:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains
>> incorrect.
>>
>> Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed
>> want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord. But
>> they are valid nevertheless.
>>
> Does that mean using << >> without the \\ is acceptable or just an
> unfortunate side effect of (for want of a better phrase) not being more
> strict when parsing << >> without the \\?
Historically, there were
\sequential { music list }
\simultaneous { music list }
first. Then easier to type equivalents
{ music list }
and
< music list >
came.
Then chord notation was introduced as
<< chord constituents >>
and finally, there was the big change of swapping the syntax for chords
and for simultaneous music.
Quite later \\ was introduced as a shortcut for parallel voices.
Since we are obviously also using << >> in constructs like
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff ...
\new Staff ...
>>
This is not just a side effect. It is the principal mode of operation.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
