On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 04:29:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Well, looks like a fair piece of work. And if one invests all this > work... I guess it would be nicer if one could write <c\glissando > e\glissando g\glissando> <d e f> and notes got matched one by one. And > possibly let <c e g>\glissando be the same as that spelled-out first > chord. > > anybody with a hunch why this would be a bad idea > and/or terribly complicated to implement and/or leading to a lot of > unpredictable behavior?
How would this work for chords with a different number of notes? Like: <c\glissando g\glissando> <d e f> wanting to match up c-d and g-f ? I admit that I don't know off-hand if anybody would ever want to do this, nor what the musical interpretation would be... I could imagine it possibly happening with divisi string music, but that would be better written as separate voices anyway. Then again, contemporary music tends to do lots of weird stuff, so I wouldn't want to bet that nobody would ever want to indicate such a connection between two chords. Or, at the very least, something like: <c\glissando g\glissando> <d e f> but wanting to match up c-e and g-f (i.e. the "d" is the non-gliss note, instead of the "e") Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
