Re: Part combiner: separate split state and voice names

[Keith OHara]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 13:46:35 -0800, Dan Eble <address@hidden> wrote:

> I have a question.  If the Scheme code produces something like (‘apart “one” 
> “two”) with “one” and “two” being the chosen output voices for the input parts 
> at the moment, would it make sense to write those decisions back to the input 
> parts themselves and have the iterator find them there?  Would that allow finer 
> control over the routing than there is now (say different routing of 
> simultaneous events in the same part) or have any other advantages?

I thought about it.  I'm not sure.

There is some reason that the existing \partcombine makes a separate 
split-list, rather than embedding the results of the analysis in the two parts. 
 It might be simply because part_combine_iterator normally looks only at 
properties of the PartCombineMusic itself, not the sequential music contained 
within.

The question seems to be whether the results of the analysis of \partcombine 
mostly describes the state of the combined parts, or mostly information about 
individual parts.

I suggest looking over the existing partcombine bugs, and orchestral scores, to 
see what problems generally need solving.