[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Ties within chords inconsistency

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: Ties within chords inconsistency
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 16:37:32 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0

Am 09.09.2015 um 08:28 schrieb David Kastrup:
Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

Am 04.09.2015 um 04:09 schrieb David Kastrup:
Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:


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.

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.

Ok, this is convincing as an internal explanation for the current behaviour. However, from the user’s point of view the two notations are equivalent and it is not desirable to have them behave differently. IMO it would be a step forward if the user would not need to know this internal distinction and recall when to write <c~> or c~. The current situation impedes workflow: without direction indicators, I don’t need <> either; if later a direction indicator is required, I have to add <> also. Of course this means reconsidering the relation and the handling of in-chord and whole-chord ties, but that shouldn’t keep us from looking for a fix, should it? It’s not important whether we call it a defect or an enhancement, then.

I think we need more opinions on this. Anyone?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]