David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes: > Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: > >>>>This concerns << ... \\ ... \\ ... ... >> >>>> >>>>If we have more than one voice, voices are assigned in order: >>>> >>>>1/2, 1/2/3, 1/2/3/4, 1/2/3/4/5, 1/2/3/4/5/6 ... >>>> >>>>while the documentation is quite explicit that, ordered from top to >>>>bottom, assignments should be more like >>>> >>>>1/2, 3/1/2, 3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4, 5/3/1/2/4/6 ... >>>> >>>>namely keeping the small voice numbers for the inner voices. Now I >>>>am sort of afraid that changing this is likely to end pretty >>>>disruptive to existing scores. Even though I don't know how many >>>>really use the original ordering unchanged as well as intentionally. >>>> >>>>Thoughts? >>> >>> I just stumbled over this for the first time recently (because I >>> usually use the othe construct with explicit voices). I found it >>> disturbing that I can't define the voices from top to bottom but >>> have to apply a seemingly wrong ordering. >> >> I think we must not change the original commands. However, we could >> introduce another series of commands that do the numbering from top to >> bottom. A possibility would be \voice + roman numeral: \voiceI, >> \voiceII, \voiceIII, etc. Or what about \voice.1, \voice.2, ...? > > Werner, that does not even make sense. The reason \voiceOne > ... \voiceTwo need to be the inner voices is because they have the > smallest shifts and those need to be in the middle in order to let up- > and downstem heads not move apart ridiculously far when they are usually > close in pitch. There is a reason you have to use \voiceOne/\voiceTwo > from the middle.
I was wrong on the details, but still: \voiceII would have no way to know whether or not \voiceIII and \voiceIV also existed, and it would need to behave entirely differently depending on that. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
