>> Actually, if we have -{ ... }, we don't need `z' at all: >> >> c'1-{ s4 s\< s2 s\! } >> >> fully does the job, by registering the fact that a final `s' comes at >> a moment which is equal the anchor's duration (sloppily formulated). > > If it does, so does > > << c'1 { s4 s\< s2 s\! } >>
Yes. > Or are you planning to limit the total "visible" duration of the > construct to the "base"? Yes. > (in your case 3/2) No. The `base' note has a length of 1/1. > So what happens with > c'1-{ s4 s\< s1 s\! } c4 c4 ? > > Does the crescendo end far after the following quarter notes? No, my idea is that everything `longer' than the base not gets ignored (causing a warning). I know that we are talking about syntactical sugar. What Graham suggests can be always written with << ... >> constructs. However, I share his feeling that many people (including me) are quite uncomfortable with using parallel music for attaching a crescendo to a note. Actually, for complicated situations, << ... >> is certainly more appropriate, but for simple cases I want a simpler notation. Werner _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel