On 8 November 2010 13:05, Valentin Villenave <[email protected]> wrote: > > Please repost your mail as a comment there, I think it will be more > appropriate, useful and (possibly) efficient :-)
Done. David > > > Slurs, ties etc from outside to the second voice would still be > forbidden. The problem really is that Lilypond's notion of continuity > (we have that also in repeat alternatives, codas and similar) is too > naive. It would be better, I did not mean "perfect". By the way, I'm sure we could *always* find cases where it would not work easily, and thus need a bad "workaround" such as using hidden notes. ;p > The above would not solve it. Some things would work, some things would > not. Depending on the voice they happen in. Is it a reason to keep this "always-not-working"? > So don't get your expectations too high about what gains can be expected > from implementing that proposal. I know the gains each time I think "I could have used a << \\ >> construct if it worked as proposed here, but I can not use it now, so I'll have to keep using explicitly instantiated voices". And I grumble. Count the number of times I grumble while entering a piano score and you'll have an idea about "how high are my expectations about what gains could be expected from implementing that proposal". Phil > > > But if we simply said this in the docs it would make it clear it's at least > possible. For me, the most annoying aspect of this behaviour is that lyrics > aren't continuous across the initial voice and the implicit voices, and when > you're setting songs that's a real pain. Yeah, I'm not used to typeset vocal scores, but in this case too it would be really great (appreciated) if " \\ Did The Right Thing". Cheers, "Grumpy" Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
