Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Urs Liska
Am 30.03.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: This would warrant a better mechanism to transplant spanners to a different context: basically one would want a mechanism to listen to slur endings in a different context than to slur starts. Possibly optionally with a \once qualification. I

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Urs Liska
Am 30.03.2015 um 07:58 schrieb David Kastrup: Kevin Barry barr...@gmail.com writes: For sure the voice context limitations are a pain, and if I knew how, I would write a function for starting and finishing slurs without the need for creating a hidden voice, but I don't even know if it is

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Werner LEMBERG
This would warrant a better mechanism to transplant spanners to a different context: basically one would want a mechanism to listen to slur endings in a different context than to slur starts. Possibly optionally with a \once qualification. I think the idea of an analogy to \change Staff

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread David Kastrup
Kevin Barry barr...@gmail.com writes: For sure the voice context limitations are a pain, and if I knew how, I would write a function for starting and finishing slurs without the need for creating a hidden voice, but I don't even know if it is possible. In my own head, I imagine that LilyPond

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Urs Liska
Am 30.03.2015 um 09:47 schrieb Urs Liska: Am 30.03.2015 um 09:31 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: This would warrant a better mechanism to transplant spanners to a different context: basically one would want a mechanism to listen to slur endings in a different context than to slur starts. Possibly

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Urs Liska
Am 30.03.2015 um 10:05 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: Thinking a little more about this: Wouldn't it even be possible to implement this as a pair of comparably simple Scheme functions? They would instantiate a hidden temporary Voice (of course using \omit not \hide) and add the respective spanner to

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Werner LEMBERG
in voiceA: c4 \connect #'Slur #'voiceB #'myanchor d e f in voiceB: e4 f g \anchor #'myanchor a You mean instead of writing (, or \ or \startTrillSpan one would write \connect and that would instantiate the grob denoted

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Werner LEMBERG
Thinking a little more about this: Wouldn't it even be possible to implement this as a pair of comparably simple Scheme functions? They would instantiate a hidden temporary Voice (of course using \omit not \hide) and add the respective spanner to that? Sounds reasonable, but this is beyond

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread David Kastrup
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes: This would warrant a better mechanism to transplant spanners to a different context: basically one would want a mechanism to listen to slur endings in a different context than to slur starts. Possibly optionally with a \once qualification. I think the

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Michael Rivers
Thank you so much for bringing this up! This is a very annoying limitation that should be fixed. I only wish I knew how to program enough to help. -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Reasons-for-cross-voice-limitations-tp173845p173898.html Sent from the Dev

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-30 Thread Werner LEMBERG
What about defining anchors? Having a slur ending in a different voice makes the `(' ... `)' notation extremely hard to read (if it works at all). Instead, I can imagine something like the following to get a slur between voiceA and voiceB, starting on the second and ending on the fourth

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-29 Thread Dan Eble
On Mar 29, 2015, at 13:49 , Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote: So I want to bring that up once more: Why do we still have this limitation? Is it an inherent problem that can't be fixed, is it just because noone cared (or had the chance) to fix it, or is it only because we didn't

Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-29 Thread Urs Liska
Hi, this has been discussed numerous times, but I think I'll have to bring it up once more: the limitations that slurs, dynamics and other spanners can't cross voice borders. This limitation is a major inconvenience for users: New users are regularly confused, using hidden voices to work

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-29 Thread Kevin Barry
For sure the voice context limitations are a pain, and if I knew how, I would write a function for starting and finishing slurs without the need for creating a hidden voice, but I don't even know if it is possible. In my own head, I imagine that LilyPond `thinks' in voices and there isn't much

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-29 Thread Urs Liska
Am 30.03.2015 um 00:20 schrieb Simon Albrecht: Am 29.03.2015 um 23:46 schrieb Kevin Barry: For sure the voice context limitations are a pain, and if I knew how, I would write a function for starting and finishing slurs without the need for creating a hidden voice, but I don't even know if it

Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

2015-03-29 Thread Simon Albrecht
Am 29.03.2015 um 23:46 schrieb Kevin Barry: For sure the voice context limitations are a pain, and if I knew how, I would write a function for starting and finishing slurs without the need for creating a hidden voice, but I don't even know if it is possible. In my own head, I imagine that