RE: Partcombine clarification

[James Lowe]

Trevor,

)-----Original Message-----
)From: Trevor Daniels [mailto:address@hidden
)Sent: 12 April 2011 10:56
)To: James Lowe; Keith OHara
)Cc: address@hidden
)Subject: Re: Partcombine clarification
)
)
)James, you wrote Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:07 AM
)
))bruys . <notenoir <at> gmail.com> writes:
))
))>  I wondered if
))> \partcombine is supposed to work with more than two parts. The )>
)documentation refers to combining "several" parts, but only shows )>
)examples with two parts.
)
)The word "several" is used only in a snippet - Combining two parts on the
)same staff.  This wording is misleading and should be changed.
)
)> In the documentation it says:
)
)> "Automatic part combining
)> Automatic part combining is used to merge two parts of music onto a
)> staff. It is aimed at typesetting orchestral scores. When the two
)> parts are identical for a period of time, only one is shown. In places
)> where the two parts differ, they are typeset as separate voices, and
)> stem directions are set automatically. Also, solo and a due parts are
)> identified and marked by default."
)
)> Should we be more explicit here and not use the term 'parts' but
)> 'voices' as a 'part' could contain more than one 'voice', the example
)> given
)> says:
)>
)> The syntax for part combining is:
)> \partcombine musicexpr1 musicexpr2
)>
)> Which is technically true but again does not imply necessarily, that
)> each 'musicexpr' can only contain a single voice.
)
)I'd prefer to leave this wording untouched.  The arguments to
)\partcombine are music expressions, not voices, although they are
)interpreted as voice contexts in partcombine, as the text says later.  You
)could _add_ a sentence mentioning the limitation to one voice here, if
)you like.
)
)> We DO have an @KNOWNISSUE
)>
)> Known issues and warnings
)> \partcombine can only accept two voices.
)>
)> However would it be ok to take this out of 'known issues'
)> and put it in the main body of the text?
)
)I'd prefer to leave this in known issues so we have a complete list there.
)I'd be happy to see the limitation on voices mentioned, in addition, earlier
)in the text.
)

That's fine, I'll leave it then. I don't see any point in mentioning it twice. 
We do cover ourselves in this case.

James