Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org> writes: >> So >> \voiceOne \voiceTwo \voiceThree \voiceFour >> becomes >> \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo > > I would make \voiceUp and \voiceDown be the same as \voiceUpOne and > \voiceUpTwo, respectively, so that we can write > > \voiceUpOne \voiceDownOne \voiceUpTwo \voiceDownTwo
Here is another variant that's a bit bold: \voice^1 \voice_1 \voice^2 \voice_2 This will syntactically take a fingering event as input. However, this does not work as \voices 1,2,-2,-1 << \\ ... \\ >> does. I am not totally sure whether \voices ^1^2_1_2 << \\ ... \\ >> might not be parseable (as a single post-event) but it won't mix with symbolic names for voice contexts. So while it is a cute replacement for \voiceOne ... and is expressive concerning its direction, I am not sure it's a winner. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user