But of course.
Sorry for my poor english : \relative c' { \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> } }
shows ok (of course) but <<c4 d4 e4>> does not.
This essay is really nice, and I want to use it for a presentation. But I
found this particular part unclear.Cheers, Pierre 2016-07-22 17:56 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>: > "Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > > > "Pierre Perol-Schneider" <pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in > > message > > news:caphotuwtxrmr97w5m2ajkt4sudvqdbd93tqudk0vfuogxh0...@mail.gmail.com. > .. > >>I clearly understand what you mean. > >> Thing is that <<c4 d4 e4>> does not show what's on the picture (actually > >> the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> } } ) > > It shows exactly what is on the picture. Have you tried it? > > > I think very early versions of LilyPond used << notes >> for chords, > > not < notes >. The earliest manual I can find online (1.6) has the > > latter notation, but it may be that the essay uses the early notation? > > I don't think so. From what I gather, the original syntax would have > used <c4 d4 e4> for simultaneous music (which gets assembled into a > chord anyway), then added the chord syntax <<c d e>>4, then finally > interchanged <<...>> and <...> in their meaning. > > However, <<c4 d4 e>> still remains a valid way to enter music that will > print as a chord (even though it will internally be represented as a > SimultanousMusic expression rather than an EventChord, this does not > affect typesetting). > > So the essay is correct here. It may still look awkward given the > current alternatives. > > -- > David Kastrup > > _______________________________________________ > bug-lilypond mailing list > bug-lilypond@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond > _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
