On Saturday, May 28, 2016, Gianmaria Lari <gianmarial...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What's the difference using or not using the \\? I tried but I didn't
> see any difference.
> g.
In this case, nothing noticeable, but it really is different because using
\\ creates completely new voice. So, attachments like lyrics, slurs, ties,
and any other kind of spanner that needs to cross the << ... >>
boundaries, has problems because most things can't cross voices without
some workarounds. Without \\, it's a continuation of the voice created
previously to
the parallel expressions << {...} {...} >>.
HTH,
Abraham
> On 27 May 2016 at 22:52, Jacques Menu Muzhic <imj-muz...@bluewin.ch
> <javascript:;>> wrote:
> > In the line of using a master to hold all dynamic information, I’d
> prefer:
> >
> > <<
> > \repeat unfold 3 { a'-4 g'-3 e'-2 c''-5 }
> > \\
> > { s1\p\< | s1 | s2. s4\! }
> >>>
> >
> > JM
> >
> >> Le 27 mai 2016 à 22:11, Gianmaria Lari <gianmarial...@gmail.com
> <javascript:;>> a écrit :
> >>
> >>>> Is there any way to write the previous code using a repeat? Something
> >>>> like this (that of course does not work):
> >>>>
> >>>> \p \< \repeat unfold 3 {a'-4 g'-3 e'-2 c''-5} \!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> <<
> >>> \repeat unfold 3 { a'-4 g'-3 e'-2 c''-5 }
> >>> { s1\p\< | s1 | s2. s4\! }
> >>>>>
> >>
> >> Oh! You're right, it works! .... even if it is not neat :(
> >>
> >> Thank you Toine!
> >> g.
>
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
