"Phil Holmes" <m...@philholmes.net> writes: > "Pierre Perol-Schneider" <pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com> wrote in > message > news:caphotuwtxrmr97w5m2ajkt4sudvqdbd93tqudk0vfuogxh0...@mail.gmail.com... >>I clearly understand what you mean. >> Thing is that <<c4 d4 e4>> does not show what's on the picture (actually >> the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> } } )
It shows exactly what is on the picture. Have you tried it? > I think very early versions of LilyPond used << notes >> for chords, > not < notes >. The earliest manual I can find online (1.6) has the > latter notation, but it may be that the essay uses the early notation? I don't think so. From what I gather, the original syntax would have used <c4 d4 e4> for simultaneous music (which gets assembled into a chord anyway), then added the chord syntax <<c d e>>4, then finally interchanged <<...>> and <...> in their meaning. However, <<c4 d4 e>> still remains a valid way to enter music that will print as a chord (even though it will internally be represented as a SimultanousMusic expression rather than an EventChord, this does not affect typesetting). So the essay is correct here. It may still look awkward given the current alternatives. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
