Hi David,
> the programming/Scheme layer of LilyPond often allows to _map_
> a problem description in composer terms to an approach in LilyPond terms.
> So sometimes finding a consistent way of describing and structuring a
> problem may garner the necessary help from the list that then provides a
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi Dan (et al.),
>
>> On Feb 6, 2020, at 09:32, Kieren MacMillan
>> wrote:
>>> So what I want to work on is some sort of ”Splittable Staff“.
>
> Just to be clear, Valentin wrote that, not me. =)
>
>> This terminology looks at the use case from a point of view that
t; very consistent with LilyPond. Let's think carefully about what we want to
> call this, because names have a way of coloring the problem-solving process.
Agreed.
> We should entertain "moving voices" as an alternative idea to "splitting
> staves" so that we are mor
, because names have a way of coloring the problem-solving process.
LilyPond already has some features that can move a voice between staves
(\change and \autoChange), and is able to hide staves without music. We should
entertain "moving voices" as an alternative idea to "split
Hi Valentin,
> As it is I think one of the important features missing in Lilypond is the
> ability to split one staff into multiple staves, which is a feature quite
> nescessary for orchestral and choral settings.
The term "missing" is perhaps misleading: I do exactly this all the time. That
Valentin Petzel writes:
> Hello,
>
> As it is I think one of the important features missing in Lilypond is the
> ability to split one staff into multiple staves, which is a feature quite
> nescessary for orchestral and choral settings. There is an ”official“ hack to
> do
> it by using
Hello,
As it is I think one of the important features missing in Lilypond is the
ability to split one staff into multiple staves, which is a feature quite
nescessary for orchestral and choral settings. There is an ”official“ hack to
do
it by using different staves and switching context, but
