Re: Following voices in chords?

[Carl Sorensen]

On 5/7/10 8:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>> I recognize that it takes a different tack than you want, because it only
>> goes note for note instead of chord for chord.  But it shows the way to get
>> the spacing you want and to avoid the clashing note columns.
>> 
>> \once \override Glissando #'minimum-length = #5
>> \once \override Glissando #'springs-and-rods =
>>    #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods
>> 
>> is the way to get the spacing.
> 
> Ok, that helps.  Not sure I understand this, though.
> 
>> To avoid the clashing note columns, you could do
>> 
>> \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t
>> 
>> before your function, and
>> 
>> \revert NoteColumn #'ignore-collision
>> 
>> after the function.
> 
> This does not change the composition of the chord?

No -- it just ignores the collision.

> 
>> It would be pretty simple for you to adjust the inner workings of
>> chord-glissando.ly to make it work by rotating the chord, rather than
>> by carving out individual notes.
> 
> Well, looks like a fair piece of work.  And if one invests all this
> work... I guess it would be nicer if one could write <c\glissando
> e\glissando g\glissando> <d e f> and notes got matched one by one.  And
> possibly let <c e g>\glissando be the same as that spelled-out first
> chord.
> 
> Putting aside the obvious "patches will be thoughtfully considered" to a
> later point of time, anybody with a hunch why this would be a bad idea
> and/or terribly complicated to implement and/or leading to a lot of
> unpredictable behavior?

I don't have any ideas why it would be a bad idea.  I'd be happy to have the
behavior you describe.

The reason it doesn't work now is that \glissando inside a chord construct
creates an articulation, while \glissando outside a chord construct creates
a separate event.  For me, it was much easier to create a music function
than to dive in and do the repairs necessary to get to the state you
describe.  So I did it.

I appreciate your consistent questioning as to how we might be able to get
LilyPond to behave in a way that seems consistent with our expectations.  I
wish I had the time to understand the internals of parsing better so I could
contribute more in this area.  But I don't, so I do the best I can with the
time I have.

Thanks,

Carl