On Nov 30, 2014, at 01:17 , Keith OHara <k-ohara5...@oco.net> wrote: > > If \partcombine can only assume part of the responsibility for routing > decisions, though, I seems cleaner to enhance the set of split-state tags to > completely describe the results of \partcombine's analysis, rather than tell > part_combine_iterator (partially) how to do its job.
I am optimistic that the Scheme code can take over the full analysis. Another reason to risk trying this is that naming combined routing decisions like silence1, silence2, etc. does not scale well to combining N parts. I have a question. If the Scheme code produces something like (‘apart “one” “two”) with “one” and “two” being the chosen output voices for the input parts at the moment, would it make sense to write those decisions back to the input parts themselves and have the iterator find them there? Would that allow finer control over the routing than there is now (say different routing of simultaneous events in the same part) or have any other advantages? Of course the summary of the combined state still needs to be provided for generating the partcombine text, and that seems to work just fine. I’m only suggesting writing the voice routing decisions back into the corresponding inputs. — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
