On Feb 23, 2016, at 16:22 , Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hi, > >> I like this a lot and I feel like I've seen this exact discussion >> before, but it didn't result in any core changes. > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-01/msg00908.html > >> Dev Team, >> >> Any reason \arpeggioArrowUp and \arpeggioArrowDown can't be defined this >> way from the beginning? Is there a use-case where the "\arpeggioArrowUp >> <c c' e> \arpeggio" way is necessary? > > I think at first it was just a property that could be set with an > override. Then this was put into a command for convenience > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/grand-predefined-command-thread-td109680.html#a109692 > However, the names \arpeggioUp and \arpeggioDown are still free and > would me much more lilypondish.
Is this a case where attaching an arpeggio to a chord with ^ or _ should make a difference, or do I misunderstand the point of those characters? — Dan _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
