On 2014/10/28 12:35:08, dan_faithful.be wrote:
On Oct 28, 2014, at 03:00 , mailto:[email protected] wrote: > > Now I see the problem. The properties you are using are those
created
> in a pre-engraving step, done separately on each of the inputs to > \partcombine. Using properties of those separate contexts for the > force-part-combine state is a bad idea.
One thing just occurred to me. (It feels like a bit of a non
sequitur, but
anyway…) The part combiner has two input voices and three output
voices.
There is more than one possible effect that a command like
\partCombineApart
could have. It could place the top note in voice “one” and the bottom
note in
voice “two”; but what if someone wanted to separate the parts and
leave the top
note in voice “shared” and the bottom note in voice “two”, for
example?
Years ago, I tried to submit a patch to allow setting the voice names
for the
part combiner so that this could be done uniformly for the whole
input. I
failed to find a solution that was acceptable for inclusion (though it
worked
for me) but maybe mentioning it now will inspire some creative
problem-solving.
It’s weird if \partCombineApart means no more than “separate the
parts”
regardless of the part it appears in. But if it instead means, “route
the
current part to voice x instead of what you would normally do, and I’m
not
trying to tell you whether it’s more appropriate to put the other part
in voice
y or z”, I think that would be easier to comprehend. I haven’t
thought through
it systematically though.
It sounds like an approach along those lines might make a better fit for n->m partcombining with n>2. But it would still need a lot of details to figure out. https://codereview.appspot.com/144600043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
