On Jan 24, 2015, at 16:55 , Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > Hi all, > >> Lastly got this help from Marc Hohl: >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=336 > > The linked issue (https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1228) > currently has a status of “abandoned” — well, at least the associated patch > does, if not the whole issue. > > Is there a technical reason why the most up-to-date engraver (e.g., > https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib/blob/c53380f5ca460d244a017389dc4bcb79a3f04d14/editorial-tools/merge-rests-engraver/definition.ily) > has not been (or cannot be) rolled into the main Lilypond codebase? Or is it > technically sound, and now it's only a matter of somebody making an > appropriate/official patch and submitting it? > > The merged output is definitely standard engraving practice, so it would be > nice to see this enhancement in Lilypond, if the coding is already done (or > at least very close).
FYI, for two voices per staff, recent (2.19.16) changes to the part combiner are supposed to merge both rests and multi-measure rests when appropriate. Of course, you must be willing to accept the part combiner's decisions about solo passages etc. or use those tedious \partcombineX commands. It would be nice if concurrent simultaneous rests could be merged without requiring the part combiner. Then we could simplify the part combiner. (You might be a programmer if you enjoy undoing hours worth of work as much as doing it in the first place.) — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
