Re: Lilypond lobbying?

[David Kastrup]

"Dmytro O. Redchuk" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:12 David Kastrup wrote:
>> > You can do this in a separate voice
>> 
>> If you think this is a separate voice
> No, I wrote "you can do it in a separate voice". Also.
>
> Both ways, as for me, are not very elegant.

Your complaint about my code focused on the consequences of doing the
crescendo in a separate voice.  Which I did not do.

So could you focus your critique on << c1 { s4 s2\< s4\! } >> (or
whatever the exact timing was) rather than on your multi-voice strawman?
That is more likely to lead to an understanding about the perceived
deficiencies of the Lilypond toolbox.  It may be a lack of
functionality, it may be a lack of documentation, it may be a lack of
understanding due to easy to make misconceptions that should be
addressed more thoroughly in the docs.

If you think that this approach is comparable in complexity and
implications to separate contexts when it, in reality, is really not
more than juggling the timing of various events in the same context
around with the help of input syntax, then perhaps Lilypond
documentation should make this much more obvious.

-- 
David Kastrup