> I'm not top posting.
% This example might be worth more than one ticket.
\version "2.18.0"
\language "english"
upper = \relative { bs'4 }
lower = \relative { b'4 }
chord = \relative { <bs' b>4 }
% In this case, the output clearly represents something other than the
% input. The input doesn't make much sense in the kinds of music I'm
% familiar with, so I don't think there is a major problem with what
% Lilypond has done except that it should warn that it did not engrave
% what was requested.
\score {
\new Staff <<
\set Staff.instrumentName = "<< \\\\ >>"
\dynamicUp \upper
\\
\dynamicDown \lower
>>
}
% In this case, I'm not sure what the output represents, but unless
% Lilypond is already engraving the expected musical notation, it
% should warn.
\score {
\new Staff <<
\set Staff.instrumentName = "< >"
\chord
>>
}
% The part combiner can choose either to put the two notes in separate
% voices or in the same voice. Is the current behavior the better
% choice in this case? Possibly not.
\score {
\new Staff <<
\set Staff.instrumentName = "partcombine"
\partcombine \upper \lower
>>
}
% ... and the CAPTCHA is "oddities." How appropriate. :-)
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
