Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: > 2011/6/26 David Kastrup <[email protected]>: >> Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> However, i see a problem now: it would be difficult to difene what >>> should happen if more than 1 slur is defined in a chord, for example >>> <c ( d' ( > < f ) c') > which note should be slurred with which one? >> >> I'd use sequential, left to right. It is a bit counterintuitive with >> regard to the nested appearance, but I think it would be worse if you >> had to invert the second chord. > > Sound good. I'm only wondering if there is any more obvious and > unconfusing way. You know, so that the user would know what to expect > just by looking at syntax.
Sure. <c (@1 d' (@2 > < f)@1 c')@2 > We already had this discussion about doing things in pseudo-voices that are basically one-per-voice. Spanners and other things. One application being multiple such things, another being cross-voice constructs. @something would apply to similar things as \tweak does, but postfix feels a bit more natural. Whatever the syntax, this should work for a number of things. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
