Re: \change Voice

[David Kastrup]

Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:

>> On Apr 30, 2015, at 03:16 , David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> On Apr 26, 2015, at 16:04 , David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> But that does not happen.  One could argue that this may be a bug,
>>>> and that every context in the current parentage that considers itself
>>>> "Bottom" should be affected by Bottom overrides.
>>> 
>>> The idea of multiple Bottoms in a hierarchy is bizarre.
>> 
>> I am not interested in bizarre or not.  The question is whether it is
>> consistent and/or useful.  "Bottom" is just a name, and its principal
>> implication is "no implicit context creation beyond this point".  Now
>> what is useful?
>
> We’re talking a lot about \override Bottom.Grob.property, but wouldn’t
> we rather have \override Grob.property do what we want on its own?
>
> What if we defined \override Grob.property as addressing the nearest
> enclosing context named “”, and aliased all contexts except
> part/sub-voice to “”.  (Maybe I’ll try that tonight and see what
> happens.)

That sounds like a recipe for disaster in connection with implicit
context creation since an \override does _not_ create implicit contexts
_unless_ it is needed for the override to succeed.

So if you do things like
\new Staff { \voiceOne c d \oneVoice ...
then \oneVoice will no longer be able to cancel \voiceOne (with respect
to other voices) since \voiceOne will have registered at Staff level.
So a \new Voice { ... } will still be under the influence of \voiceOne.

That's _not_ what I call useful.

-- 
David Kastrup