Kieren MacMillan <kie...@alumni.rice.edu> writes: > Hi David (et al.), > >> Personally, I'd prefer a different number assignment: >> >> \implicitVoices 1,-1 >> \implicitVoices 1,2,-1 >> \implicitVoices 1,2,-2,-1 >> \implicitVoices 1,2,3,-2,-1 >> >> Stem direction is recognizable from the sign (0 would be \oneVoice), and >> apart from the sign, increasing numbers go down one voice. > > I like that a lot! > >> Not sure that this ship hasn't sailed though. > > Has any ship ever truly sailed on the ‘Pond? ;)
So \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour becomes \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo or \voice1 \voice-1 \voice2 \voice-2 The strictly numeric ones are probably somewhat less likely to make people think that \voiceDown would be above \voiceDownTwo . The magnitude of the number corresponds quite directly with horizontal-shift (after subtracting 1). That's sort of a helpful cue when you are trying to copy some graphical arrangement of voices. The numbers may be less contentious than \inner\inner . Also this makes it easier to provide an equivalent \voiceStyle (as \inner\voiceStyleUp would need a completely different behavior for \inner than \inner\voiceUp ). -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
