On 02/06/14 17:38, David Kastrup wrote: > Urs Liska <lilyli...@googlemail.com> writes: > >> Am 02.06.2014 09:51, schrieb Brian Eve: >>> \version "2.18.2-1" >>> >>> { >>> \clef bass >>> \compressFullBarRests >>> \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 >>> R1*6 >>> << g4. e >> << f d >> <<e4 d >> >>> a1 >>> R1*6 >>> << b8 e8 >> >>> r8 r4 r2 >>> R1*6 >>> R1 >>> r >>> R >>> } >> No, that's very wrong code. >> >> With these << >> you are actually telling LilyPond to print >> independent voices while you want to write chords. > No, he doesn't. << >> does not imply multiple voices unless you use \\ > inside. It's less readable notation than proper chords like > > <g e>4. <f d> <e d>4 > > but it leads to the same events being processed (and consequently the > same result being engraved) even though the music expression itself is > different. > >> This may work in your example but you would definitely run into >> problems very soon. > Not really. > >> But I assume this is not what you _want_ - you will want to have the >> polyphonic part with independent stems. > Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains > incorrect. > > Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed > want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord. But > they are valid nevertheless. > Does that mean using << >> without the \\ is acceptable or just an unfortunate side effect of (for want of a better phrase) not being more strict when parsing << >> without the \\?
James _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond