Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

But of course.
Sorry for my poor english : \relative c' { \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> } }
shows ok (of course) but <<c4 d4 e4>> does not.
This essay is really nice, and I want to use it for a presentation. But I
found this particular part unclear.

Cheers,
Pierre


2016-07-22 17:56 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:

> "Phil Holmes" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > "Pierre Perol-Schneider" <address@hidden> wrote in
> > message
> > news:address@hidden
> ..
> >>I clearly understand what you mean.
> >> Thing is that <<c4 d4 e4>> does not show what's on the picture (actually
> >> the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <<c4 d4 e>> } } )
>
> It shows exactly what is on the picture.  Have you tried it?
>
> > I think very early versions of LilyPond used << notes >> for chords,
> > not < notes >.  The earliest manual I can find online (1.6) has the
> > latter notation, but it may be that the essay uses the early notation?
>
> I don't think so.  From what I gather, the original syntax would have
> used <c4 d4 e4> for simultaneous music (which gets assembled into a
> chord anyway), then added the chord syntax <<c d e>>4, then finally
> interchanged <<...>> and <...> in their meaning.
>
> However, <<c4 d4 e>> still remains a valid way to enter music that will
> print as a chord (even though it will internally be represented as a
> SimultanousMusic expression rather than an EventChord, this does not
> affect typesetting).
>
> So the essay is correct here.  It may still look awkward given the
> current alternatives.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>