David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM
> I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs
> as well. The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted
> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp,
> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ...
I definitely object to this. The meaning and use of the \voicexxx
predefs is engrained in the habits and memory of many, most?, of the
long-standing LP users, as well as pretty well all existing code.
Changing the way the << .. \\ .. >> construct works is one thing,
one I could perhaps be persuaded to accept, but renaming the \voicexxx
constructs would be a major change which is far from justified by the
current rather minor issue - one that has hardly, if ever, figured in
user queries, probably because anyone needing more than two voices
would almost certainly code them explicitly, as 1,3,5 .. 6,4,2 - the
way clearly set out in the manuals, with the numbers corresponding to
the rank of the shifts.
"Kieren MacMillan" wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 8:52 PM
> Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named,
> might I recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have
> custom functions called "splitX" (workhorses in my code), which
> remove the need for me to remember how to code such things:
[pseudocode:]
\splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
\splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with
DOWN }
\splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic
\with DOWN }
etc.
This approach looks much less invasive and quite intuitive. Worth
exploring further, I think.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
