On Mar 29, 2015, at 13:49 , Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > > So I want to bring that up once more: Why do we still have this limitation? > Is it an inherent problem that can't be fixed, is it just because noone cared > (or had the chance) to fix it, or is it "only" because we didn't explicitly > think about the right way to deal with it semantically and with regard to > syntax?
In software almost anything can be fixed with enough effort. I’m rather new here and I haven’t searched the archives, but probably the design evolved over time to fill the most basic needs first. It’s probably a larger problem than any single contributor wants to tackle at any given time. I’ve been taking a bit of a break from contributing to Lilypond the past couple months, but I had been thinking about the part combiner quite a bit, and I had a lot of trouble with inconsistencies between my understanding of “voice” and “part” in music and their practical counterparts in Lilypond. A Lilypond Voice (especially one generated by \partcombine) can bear very little resemblance to a musical voice. So I think the topic you’ve raised is a good one, and I sympathize with your frustration. — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
