On 28.02.2010, at 10:56, Xavier Scheuer wrote:
2010/2/28 James Bailey <derhindem...@googlemail.com>:
The only problem I have with this is that I don't think that manual
staff changes are supposed to work with autochange.
…
So, according to the doc, it should be possible to mix automatic and
manual staff changes.
Or this sentence should be more explicit about what is implied with
"additional control"...
I think the additional control is actually controlling things that
belong to the staff engraver. A more descriptive explanation wouldn't
hurt.
From what I understand it is just because "The staff switches may not
end up in optimal places" (listen, /with the automatic behaviour/).
But if you can mix manual and automatic, then you can get over it.
I'm still not convinced that the autochanger was ever meant to be
mixed with the manual changer. It seems that, if anything, the bug is
that it's possible to have manual staff changes whilst using the
autochanger.
…
The autochanger switches on the basis of the pitch (middle C is the
turning point), and __it looks ahead **skipping over rests** to
switch in advance__
So George_, your bug seems to be a "side effect" of this rest skipping
functionality.
I actually wouldn't call that a bug. I would call it the intended
behavior. The autochanger looks to where it will put the next note,
then places the previous rest on the same staff.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
