Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
> 2011/8/26 Dmytro O. Redchuk <brownian....@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 13:54 David Kastrup wrote:
>>> So maybe the "spacer rest" terminology is not doing anybody a favor.
>>>
>>> Would you have felt more comfortable if my example had used "\skip"
>>> instead of "spacer rests"?
>> No, not sure. Why "music" should contain any "skips" to be "typeset" nicely?
>>
>> Well, really, excuse me :-)
>>
>> I wanted to say, that, very probably, "\<{...}" would be really great
>> (to shift starting point right). And that spacers are, as for me, a bit
>> "innatural".
>
> How do you like syntax like this:
> e1 \< #0.25 \f #0.5 \> f2 \! #0.5
> which would mean this
> \new Voice << { e1 f2 } {s4 s4 \< s2 \f \> s4 s4 \! } >>
> ?
Why would it create a new voice? Actually, I can't make head nor tail
of the above syntax. If I split the lower into
<< e1 {s4 s4\< s2\f\>} >> << f2 {s4 s4\!} >>
it becomes more comprehensible: start cresc after 1/4, reach \f and
start descresc after another 1/4, end 1/4 into the following note.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
