Am Freitag, 26. August 2011, 14:22:27 schrieb David Kastrup:
> I think if
> a note or "spacer rest" creates an implicit Voice context for the rest
> of sequential music in { c ... } then it should do the same for << c
> ... >>. Can anybody think of music where this would be a bad idea? I
> am not even convinced that
> { c d e f } { g h a b }
> warrants two different contexts and consequently systems. How do you
> explain the output of
>
> { \transpose c g { c d e f } g a b c' }
>
> convincingly to anybody?
These all highlight shortcomings of the implicit staff/voice creation of
LilyPond. Nobody says that it is perfect, to the contrary, it has several
known problems. They are just easy to overcome (in any larger score you would
manually create the voice or staff anyway, so the problem only appears in very
simple snippets). The workaround is always to manually create the staff/voice.
That's also what we advise all over the docs.
The worst example is if some music starts with cue notes: Everything will be
printed as cue notes, unless you manually create the Voice context yourself.
Of course, nobody would object to fixes of the implicit context creation in
LilyPond ;-)
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/
* Financial & Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria
* http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886
* LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
