2011/8/28 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>:
> 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?
Sorry, i didn't mean that it should create a new voice. I've just
added it to make sure that if someone compiles that example, he indeed
gets one voice as output.
> 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.
Precisely.
cheers,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
