Han-Wen Nienhuys <[email protected]> writes: > On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Werner LEMBERG <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We >>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example. >>> But if we write something like >>> >>> <c( e...@1( g> <d...@1) f)> >>> >>> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of >>> subvoice 1 (a subvoice having its own engraver copies that get to >>> handle basic events just from its own subvoice), then it becomes >>> possible to use parallel slurs in one voice. >> >> I like this. Up to now noone had ever such an idea, and your > > This is false. I had the idea earlier and unleashed it on the world. > It was called the Thread context, and it was a disaster, because it > would die or be created at unexpected times. I you dive deep enough > into the git history, you can find its remnants.
And if we don't call it "subvoice" but work this as "labels"? The point would be to make (most importantly spanning) engravers deal with multiple simultaneously active engraving entities. One would use "labels" as a tweak to make them ignore ending spanners not intended for them. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
