Re: \partcombine terribly broken

[Erik Sandberg]

On Tuesday 30 March 2004 13.23, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
> > 4. Look at
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.1/Documentation/user/out-www/lilypond/Automati
> >c-part-combining.html#Automatic% 20part%20combining
> > In the first example, the stems of the two voices are merged. According
> > to the documentation they shouldn't be.
>
> Why?

I might have misunderstood the docu. Quoting:
"The first part (with context called one) always gets up stems, and `solo', 
while the second (called two) always gets down stems and `Solo II'."

My first impression was that this stem direction stuff refers to the sections 
when there is polyphony between the parts, which of course is incorrect 
(there is no "solo" markings over those sections)

But in any case, if the rule refers to the solo parts, then the example breaks 
it anyways: The Solo II section gets stems up, and in the Solo section one 
note gets stem down.

And the paragraph after the example leaves some unanswered questions:
"The first g appears only once, although it was specified twice (once in each 
part). Stem, slur and tie directions are set automatically, depending whether 
there is a solo or unisono. The first part (with context called one) always 
gets up stems, and `solo', while the second (called two) always gets down 
stems and `Solo II'."
(btw `solo' should be `Solo' and "depending whether" should be "depending on 
whether")

What exactly happens if the two parts differ? Will they (1) always be merged 
into one voice (and in that case, to which Voice context), or will they (2) 
be polyphonised as if << \\ >> had been used, or (3) will either one of (1) 
and (2) be chosen depending on whether the parts differ rythmically?

Erik