Dan Eble <d...@faithful.be> writes: > On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> >> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ... >> \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ... >> \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ... >> \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ... > > I’m not sure whether this thread has progressed beyond the need to > mention this (forgive me if it has), but this is repulsive.
Well, it is actually more like << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceOne ... \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceThree ... \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceFour ... \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceTwo ... >> because I misremembered the order. But I assume that your qualification would still apply. > I mean that in as friendly a way as possible. Well, I did mention that I was also for retiring \voiceOne...\voiceFour. My current proposal would be more like << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceUp ... \context Voice = "2" \with \inner \voiceUp ... \context Voice = "3" \with \inner \voiceDown ... \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceDown ... >> At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with << \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >> and << \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >> because that is what we currently have? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
