>> Actually, if we have -{ ... }, we don't need `z' at all:
>>
>> c'1-{ s4 s\< s2 s\! }
>>
>> fully does the job, by registering the fact that a final `s' comes at
>> a moment which is equal the anchor's duration (sloppily formulated).
>
> If it does, so does
>
> << c'1 { s4 s\< s2 s\! } >>
Yes.
> Or are you planning to limit the total "visible" duration of the
> construct to the "base"?
Yes.
> (in your case 3/2)
No. The `base' note has a length of 1/1.
> So what happens with
> c'1-{ s4 s\< s1 s\! } c4 c4 ?
>
> Does the crescendo end far after the following quarter notes?
No, my idea is that everything `longer' than the base not gets ignored
(causing a warning).
I know that we are talking about syntactical sugar. What Graham
suggests can be always written with << ... >> constructs. However, I
share his feeling that many people (including me) are quite
uncomfortable with using parallel music for attaching a crescendo to a
note. Actually, for complicated situations, << ... >> is
certainly more appropriate, but for simple cases I want a simpler
notation.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
