On Tue 01 Nov 2016 at 21:18:31 (+0100), David Kastrup wrote: > David Wright <lily...@lionunicorn.co.uk> writes: > > > ยน why not \voiceTop \voiceUp \voiceDown \voiceBottom ? Well, you could > > end up with \voiceUp having stems pointing down, > > Uh no? \voiceUp will always have stems pointing up, and \voiceDown will > have them pointing down. \inner (or whatever you want to use instead) > just increases the horizontal-shift value and does nothing else.
Yes, I didn't mean that LP would change it's behaviour. It's just that sometimes you have to override the stems to make them point the "wrong" way. So the printed copy might have stems pointing up in a section of a part that you happen to know is called with \voiceDown. Finding an example is not easy as I try to avoid setting keyboard music. Looking at real printed scores, on a tiny, trivial scale (one note), the tied d'' would (in a future version) be \voiceDown, but the stem is overridden to Up. I would find thinking of these three parts as Top Low Bottom easier than Top Up Bottom, were this example on a much larger scale. It's setting these "weaving" parts that I hate. Top/High/Low/Bottom only carry "altitude" information, whereas Up/Down can have other relevant meanings overloaded onto them. That's all I meant. > The whole point of the renaming exercise was that the voice type > commands retain a fixed and predictable meaning. It's only the << \\ \\ > ... >> construct which becomes smarter. Cheers, David.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
