Am 17.02.2017 um 08:34 schrieb d...@gnu.org:
> On 2017/02/17 07:27:27, git wrote:
>> On 2017/02/17 07:24:42, dak wrote:
>
>> > Documentation should not focus about how to use the wrong tool for
> the job.
>> > If you want to document it, do it the other way round: explain how
> you can keep
>> > the staves of a GrandStaff together and then mention that this
> behavior is desired
>> > so often for piano that PianoStaff is already separately available.
>
>> I don't see how PianoStaff is the wrong tool to notate piano music.
>
>> But I will see to rewriting it the other way round.
>
> Ok, I'll bite. What kind of piano music is written like
>
> \score {
> \new PianoStaff <<
> \new Staff = "up" <<
> \structure
> \v.1
> \v.2
> >>
> \dyn.1
> \new Staff = "mid" <<
> \structure
> \v.3
> \v.4
> >>
> \dyn.2
> \new Staff = "lo" <<
> \structure
> \v.5
> >>
> >>
> }
>
> Because that is the example underlying your report.
Piano Music, at least starting with Liszt, all the way through into the
20th century and until today.
The Ravel piece here requires five individual voices that are basically
distributed among three staves (frequent staff changes included), but
are printed partially on a three-stave PianoStaff and partially using
only the standard two staves.
I feel it's natural to use PianoStaff here and to tell it to french the
middle system if empty.
What I think I'll write to the docs now is that you have the choice
between resorting to GrandStaff (for the piano) or to remove the engraver.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
