Hi all,
A fascinating thread, for a number of reasons…
Regardless of how the individual functions are ultimately named, might I
recommend we add a *lot* of syntactic sugar? I have custom functions called
“splitX” (workhorses in my code), which remove the need for me to remember how
to code such things:
[pseudocode:]
\splitUD { topmusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with DOWN }
\splitUUD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with UP } { bottommusic \with
DOWN }
\splitUDD { topmusic \with UP } { middlemusic \with DOWN } { bottommusic
\with DOWN }
etc.
One the rest of the syntax settles, it might be nice to have two-, three-,
four-, five-, and maybe more-voice versions of these functions in the standard
distro, so that people don’t have to use << \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ >> and so
forth.
Just a thought,
Kieren.
________________________________
Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
