>> If at all, the syntax would be e.g.
>>
>> <g,8 d'4 b'2>
>>
>> and the chord's duration would be the maximum of the single note's
>> durations.
>>
>> This syntax extension looks quite natural to me.
>
> Not to me. Chord syntax explicitly creates a combined object with a
> common duration, and the duration is specified _after_ the closing
> angle bracket. Accents and similar can be placed afterwards as
> well. What would it mean to have, say, a common staccato on a
> "chord" with different notes? Or add a common duration to a chord
> with durations specified inside already?
Of course there are border cases which should be handled gracefully.
However, we already have a precendence, namely the handling of ties:
<c e> ~ <c e> % both notes get a tie
<c~ > <c e> % only the `c' gets a tie
> As far as I can see, there is not much more to do than just omit the
> warning for parallel music when the output is sensible. The extra
> angles for being allowed (and required) to put the durations inside
> seem like a reasonably cheap price to pay.
There is an additional obstacle: If you do
\relative c {
<<c g'' d''>>
}
you get three staves with single notes instead of a chord...
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
