Am Mi., 17. Juli 2024 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb Werner LEMBERG <w...@gnu.org>:
>
>
> >> ```
> >> \version "2.25.18"
> >>
> >> foo =
> >> #(define-music-function () ()
> >> #{
> >> <<
> >> c'4
> >> \new Voice { g''4 }
> >> >>
> >> #})
> >>
> >> {
> >> \override Staff.NoteColumn.ignore-collision = ##t
> >> c'4 \foo \stemUp \foo \stemDown \foo
> >> }
> >> ```
> >>
> >> As can be seen, the `\new Voice` doesn't react to `\stemUp` and
> >> `\stemDown`. Is there a way to fix this, maybe by 'cloning' all
> >> properties of the `Stem` grob in the current `Voice` context to the
> >> new one?
> >
> > why not:
> > [\once] \override Staff.Stem.direction = #UP/DOWN
> > ?
>
> Well, if I could get this info within the music function, I would pass
> it on to `\new Voice` as you describe. So: How do I get this info
> from the current context?
>
>
> Werner
Well, obviously I don't understand what you want.
Typing \stemUp/Down or [\once] \override Staff.Stem.direction =
#UP/DOWN is no real difference, if you need to enter such a command.
You could do:
foo =
#(define-music-function () ()
#{
<<
\applyContext
#(lambda (ctx)
(let* ((stem-direction
(assoc-get 'direction (ly:context-grob-definition ctx 'Stem)))
(ctx-parent (ly:context-parent ctx)))
(when (number? stem-direction)
(ly:context-pushpop-property
ctx-parent
'Stem
'direction
stem-direction))))
c'4
\new Voice { g''4 \revert Staff.Stem.direction }
>>
#})
{
\override Staff.NoteColumn.ignore-collision = ##t
c'4 \foo \once \stemUp \foo \foo \stemDown \foo
}
But there is still the Stem.direction-override.
Apart from that I'm not convinced above coding is suffiviently robust.
You may need ti test thoroughly.
Cheers,
Harm
