Re: Part combiner: separate split state and voice names

[Dan Eble]

On Nov 30, 2014, at 01:17 , Keith OHara <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> If \partcombine can only assume part of the responsibility for routing 
> decisions, though, I seems cleaner to enhance the set of split-state tags to 
> completely describe the results of \partcombine's analysis, rather than tell 
> part_combine_iterator (partially) how to do its job.

I am optimistic that the Scheme code can take over the full analysis.  Another 
reason to risk trying this is that naming combined routing decisions like 
silence1, silence2, etc. does not scale well to combining N parts.

I have a question.  If the Scheme code produces something like (‘apart “one” 
“two”) with “one” and “two” being the chosen output voices for the input parts 
at the moment, would it make sense to write those decisions back to the input 
parts themselves and have the iterator find them there?  Would that allow finer 
control over the routing than there is now (say different routing of 
simultaneous events in the same part) or have any other advantages?

Of course the summary of the combined state still needs to be provided for 
generating the partcombine text, and that seems to work just fine.  I’m only 
suggesting writing the voice routing decisions back into the corresponding 
inputs.
— 
Dan