Re: Ties within chords inconsistency

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 04.09.2015 um 04:09 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> consider the following example:
>>> %%%%%%%%%%%%
>>> \version "2.19.25"
>>>
>>> \new Voice << { c''^~ c'' } { a'_~ a' } >>
>>>
>>> \new Voice << { <c''^~> c'' } { <a'_~> a' } >>
>>>
>>> { <c''^~ a'_~> <c'' a'> }
>>> %%%%%%%%%%%%
>>>
>>> Contrary to (at least my) expectation the first example gives
>>>
>>> tie-within-chord.ly:6:33 <0>: warning: Two simultaneous tie events,
>>> junking this one
>>>
>>> \new Voice << { c''^~ c'' } { a'
>>>
>>> _~ a' } >>
>>>
>>> and applies the first tie to both notes.
>>> The other two give correct output, and it would serve consistency and
>>> predictability if the first did also.
>>>
>>> Possibly related: <http://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/2240/>.
>> No, even before the infamous issue 2240 ("Don't wrap EventChord around
>> rhythmic events by default.") an in-chord tie on an individual note and
>> an independent tie event would have behaved in that manner.  Before
>> issue 2240, the input would have been translated into what is now
>>
>> \new Voice << { <c''>^~ <c''> } { <a'>_~ <a'> } >>
>>
>> \new Voice << { <c''^~> <c''> } { <a'_~> <a'> } >>
>>
>> { <c''^~ a'_~> <c'' a'> }
>>
>> and the _result_ from typesetting your input is just like before issue 2240.
>
> <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4597/>
>
> My ‘possibly related’ statement was only supposed to indicate that
> these issues have similar topics and are likely concerned with similar
> parts of the code.

Uh, this is _not_ a bug and _not_ an inconsistency.  LilyPond
differentiates in-chord ties and whole-chord ties (as with most other
articulations).  Using parallel music does not magically change the
in-chord or out-of-chord character of articulations.  Multiple
whole-chord ties are redundant and flagged.

-- 
David Kastrup