Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes:
> Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
> in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1
Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were instigated
by me, so I see how to avoid them.
The use of s1*0 to label music from \cueDuring
s1*0^\markup { \right-align { \tiny "Flute" } }
\cueDuring "flute" #UP { g4 bes4 }
got some strong negative feedback
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-10/msg00293.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-10/msg00118.html
so I'm happy to put these back to use a temporary voice
\new CueVoice {
\override InstrumentSwitch #'self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
\set instrumentCueName = "Flute"
}
\cueDuring "flute" #UP { g4 bes4 }
I had complained that this method caused problems when instruments
take cues from each other, but these problems are avoided so
long as the temporary voice is explicitly created and finished.
The uses to finish spanners after the last note,
{ e'2\p\< d'\> s1*0\! }
can also be handled with a temporary voice
<<
{ e'2 d'! }
{ s2\p\< s4\> s8. s16\! }
>>
Other uses are simlarly avoided with parallel voices.
David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
> I tried discussing using "< >" in the documentation vs the possibly
> stranger looking "<>".
> However, there has been no feedback whatsoever on this proposal.
It has not yet been a day. They way you have \displayLilyMusic
write < > makes sense for consistency there. In the documentation,
<> is more consistent with <c e g>, as you already concluded.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
