"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, November 01, 2016 4:11 PM > >> I want to rename the \voiceXXX constructs >> as well. The old ones will be available still but no longer promoted >> and/or documented prominently, instead using something like \voiceUp, >> \voiceDown, \inner \voiceUp, \inner \VoiceDown ... > > I definitely object to this. The meaning and use of the \voicexxx > predefs is engrained in the habits and memory of many, most?, of the > long-standing LP users, as well as pretty well all existing code.
So? "The old ones will be available still". So do you want << a \\ b \\ c \\ d >> to correspond to << \context Voice = "1" { \voiceOne a } \context Voice = "2" { \voiceThree a } \context Voice = "3" { \voiceFour a } \context Voice = "4" { \voiceTwo a } >> or to << \context Voice = "1" { \voiceOne a } \context Voice = "3" { \voiceThree a } \context Voice = "4" { \voiceFour a } \context Voice = "2" { \voiceTwo a } >> ? Either one will be a real joy to explain. That's why I want the documented version to make more sense than that. And even explicit stuff like << \new Voice = "sopranoI" \with { \voiceOne } ... \new Voice = "sopranoII" \with { \voiceThree } ... \new Voice = "alto" \with { \voiceTwo } ... >> or << \new Voice = "soprano" \with { \voiceOne } ... \new Voice = "altoI" \with { \voiceFour } ... \new Voice = "altoII" \with { \voiceTwo } ... >> just reads awfully and is really embarrassing to show in talk slides. It also has absolutely no connection to \voiceOneStyle, \voiceTwoStyle, \voiceThreeStyle ... which you'd more likely apply from top to bottom. Take a look at our example for voice styles: Voice styles ............ Voices may be given distinct colors and shapes, allowing them to be easily identified: << \relative { \voiceOneStyle d''4 c2 b4 } \\ \relative { \voiceTwoStyle e'2 e } \\ \relative { \voiceThreeStyle b2. c4 } \\ \relative { \voiceFourStyle g'2 g } >> [image] The ‘\voiceNeutralStyle’ command is used to revert to the standard presentation. Order is << \voiceOne (1st voice from top) in \voiceOneStyle \\ \voiceTwo (3rd voice from top) in \voiceTwoStyle \\ \voiceThree (4th voice from top) in \voiceThreeStyle \\ \voiceFour (2nd voice from top) in \voiceFourStyle >> This became a four-voice example with commit 213025779c233a52b4b56583926d2fe3335ce06b Author: Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> Date: Mon Jul 14 19:52:37 2008 -0700 Update from Francisco. It took me some back and forth to finally come to the conclusion that this example is indeed as correct as it gets and shows \voiceTwo as corresponding to \voiceTwoStyle . But do you want to explain the entry order to a beginner? Ah, I see Mark did: commit a52dc416eb5264c67a8b278207f372ed527a870d Author: Mark Polesky <markpole...@yahoo.com> Date: Fri Sep 24 07:51:09 2010 -0700 Doc: NR 1.5.2: Clarify voice order; \shiftOn etc. Voice order ........... When entering multiple voices in the input file, use the following order: Voice 1: highest Voice 2: lowest Voice 3: second highest Voice 4: second lowest Voice 5: third highest Voice 6: third lowest etc. Though this may seem counterintuitive, it simplifies the automatic layout process. "It simplifies the automatic layout process"? Nope, that's absolutely not a valid excuse. Either we can sell this as a great user-level feature for note entry. Or not. The layout process could not care less about our decision so we should not try hiding behind it. I am not suggesting that Mark did this: he probably operated with the "somebody must have had a reason for this" assumption and made a guess what it might have been (and, well, it passed review). If so, he apparently ruled out "because it is a useful thing to do". It's a valiant effort. The Learning Manual also introduces this voice order early on. We also have The commands ‘\voiceXXXStyle’ are mainly intended for use in educational documents such as this one. They modify the color of the note head, the stem and the beams, and the style of the note head, so that the voices may be easily distinguished. Voice one is set to red diamonds, voice two to blue triangles, voice three to green crossed circles, and voice four (not used here) to magenta crosses; already in the LM. With regard to selling this as a great user-level feature: I can see the order of << \\ \\ \\ >> make some sense for ad-hoc polyphony where you use just as many voices as you need for representing the current harmonic context, and then you'll generally try making do with a top and bottom voice and, if necessary, fill in stuff in the middle. I think that's more or less what Mark (Stephen Mrotek) described as his manner of operation. Such an entry concept would be feasible for solo violin pieces, some other stuff like guitar music, some ratio of semi-chorded (rather than rigidly voiced) keyboard music. Basically whenever voices are a somewhat artificial way of expressing usually single-instrument music in terms of LilyPond's input rather than an inherent musical entity. Somewhat related are splitting an instrument group into multiple voices for short passages. The behavior of << \\ \\ >> may be argued to match the sequence of codification processes of experienced LilyPond writers. And as a non-cosmetic consideration, there is a chance that ties and slurs will be better matched to voices when switching between two- and three-voice polyphony when the _outer_ voices retain their names and identity. I think it is a bad idea to rely on the linkup of the implicit contexts of multiple << ... >> << ... >> constructs in sequence, particularly so when they contain a different number of contexts. But I have no data how often people might actually do this kind of thing. However, in the contexts of explicit and permanent voices, the explicit names \voiceOne...\voiceFour are less than helpful in my opinion because the sequence One/Two/Three/Four does not bear any useful relation to the actual ordering of voices. And in the context of explicit and permanent voices, one would not organize the source in order soprano, bass, alto, tenor. It might even correspond to the order of _composition_, but as a reading order, it is unpleasant. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user