Hi all,
> \new ChoirStaff = choir <<
> \new Staff = choir.upper <<
> \new Voice = choir.upper.soprano
> \new Voice = choir.upper.alto
> >>
> \new Staff = choir.lower <<
> \new Voice = choir.lower.tenor
> \new Voice = choir.lower.bass
> >>
> >>
To be honest, I’d prefer
\new ChoirStaff = choir <<
\new Staff = upper <<
\new Voice = soprano
\new Voice = alto
>>
\new Staff = lower <<
\new Voice = tenor
\new Voice = bass
>>
>>
though I understand that such a situation could introduce potential
complexities (impossibilities?) once a score has more contexts [esp. of the
same type] than what’s in that simple example.
> It seems to me that
> \context StaffGroup ID1.ID2.ID3.ID4
> (where StaffGroup ID1 exists)
> Should find StaffGroup ID1, then find a child context ID2 of StaffGroup ID1,
> Then find a child context ID3 of ID2,
> Then find a child context ID4 of ID3.
Hmmm… I would have thought the opposite: that it would [try to] find the
StaffGroup which has ID4 as its identifier and which is the child of the
context [of unknown type?] which has ID1.ID2.ID3 as its identifier/path. Am I
the only one who thinks that way?
For my information: Does the alternative form
\context "StaffGroup ID1".ID2.ID3.ID4
accurately/fairly represent how your suggestion is constructed?
> I think that we must consider all of the possibilities currently in lilypond
> before changing to this form of notation. I personally find the lilypond
> concept that voices exist independently of staves although they are always
> expressed in a staff at any point in time to be far more powerful than the
> MusicXML concept that voices exist in staves.
I totally agree.
Cheers,
Kieren.
