Hi Simon
> there’s no point in discussing off-list.
My bad, I hit the wrong button. Just for the sake of having the
conversation registered in the list, I am copying my previous message to
the bottom of this one.
>> The output is ambiguous
> It is inconsistent
Yes, inconsistent is a much better word.
> I forgot to mention: You can change this indication
Thanks! I also like that better.
> If no one else will give some more founded comment on this, I’ll
raise an issue from this.
Great, thanks for all the help and patience.
Cheers,
Gilberto
* * *
Hi Simon,
Sorry for the misunderstanding, I installed 2.19.28 and indeed there is
a Solo indication above that b2~, as well as its stem is in the correct
place. The rest r2 just before it is still in a wrong position though,
see:
http://s14.postimg.org/a6dhivry9/Screenshot_from_2015_10_18_17_22_44.png
> So as I understand it the main point of your request would be the
behavior of \partcombineApart, if one voice has rests.
Yes and no: yes, that has always been my point, but no, that is not a
request, that is *already* how \partcombineApart works. See the
following case in which the \partcombineApart command is at the same
position as the R1*N:
\version "2.19.28"
{
\partcombine
{\partcombineApart r2 b'2~ | 1 | \partcombineAutomatic c''1 |}
{R1*2 | f'1 |}
}
Which outputs this (no solos, no single voice, just two voices apart as
expected, regardless of full measure rests or not):
http://s14.postimg.org/sw5gzmkox/Screenshot_from_2015_10_18_17_22_51.png
So my point is that it's broken if and only if there are R1*N happening
before the command \partcombineApart.
> Which it can, and though it may not be up to your preferences, the
output is unambiguous, understandable and correct.
The output is ambiguous because the output of LilyPond will differ if
the R1*N coincide (or happens later) than the \partcombineApart command
or if it happens before. It's also not correct as shown by the rest
circled in red in the first screenshot on this message. Below is an even
more concise tiny example showing the problem, wouldn't you agree that
the output should be at least equal in order to argue that it's
unambiguous?:
\version "2.19.28"
{
\partcombine
{R1 | \partcombineApart r2 b' | \partcombineAutomatic c''1 |}
{R1*2 | f'1 |}
}
{
\partcombine
{R1 | \partcombineApart r2 b' | \partcombineAutomatic c''1 |}
{R1 | R1 | f'1 |}
}
Producing:
http://s14.postimg.org/m6yxjlzcx/Screenshot_from_2015_10_18_17_22_54.png
> Sorry I can’t help more. I may raise an issue though, but I’d like
for someone else’s opinion before.
Sure, thanks anyway.
Cheers,
Gilberto
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
