Re: Add a \voicify command (issue 320820043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

address@hidden writes:

> Great!
>
> Two thoughts:
>
> (1)
> it's a common request on the user list how to continue a tie into the <<
> \\ >> - construct.
> I'm aware we explain it at the lines of "don't use the
> double-backslash".
> Also, how to use named voices is explained, iirc.
>
> Though, I'd like to see an explicit example like
>
> \new Voice = main {
>   a'4^~
>   \voicify main , 2
>   << a' \\ c' >>
> }
>
> more prominently mentioned somewhere in the Learning Manual (even
> shorter than the regtest).
>
> Tbh, I'm not sure where to insert it, otherwise I'd commented infile.

That's sort of a "I'll leave this for the documentation guys to bikeshed
over" for me.  They tend to reorganize our stuff to make it less
makeshift and more cohesive and consistent regularly anyway.

> https://codereview.appspot.com/320820043/diff/40001/scm/music-functions.scm
> File scm/music-functions.scm (right):
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/320820043/diff/40001/scm/music-functions.scm#newcode968
> scm/music-functions.scm:968:
> Why not throw an error if lengths of `lst' and `id' doesn't match?
> Something at the lines of:
>
> (if (not (= (length lst)(length id)))
>       (ly:error
>               "~a: more voices (~a) than id's (~a)"
>               (*location*)
>               (length lst)
>               (length id)))
>
> I'm aware about the warning below which will be printed in this case.
> Though, "No more voicification ids" sounds not clear enough, imho.

Well, then let's improve that warning text.  It's probably more suitable
for \voicify anyway and we more or less agreed on \voices instead.

> And a the compilation of the .ly-file will not be successfull anyway.

Why wouldn't it be successful in the manner of "file can be completed
without straying from intended meaning too far"?  At any rate, I don't
want to be too fussy here at the moment in case people want to write
stuff like

\fourVoice = \voices 1,2,3,4

and overuse it.  Just have a bad feeling over doing too much here, not a
really no-brainer argument.

> https://codereview.appspot.com/320820043/

-- 
David Kastrup