Re: Reasons for cross-voice limitations?

[Werner LEMBERG]

>>    in voiceA:  c4
>>                \connect #'Slur #'voiceB #'myanchor
>>                d e f
>>
>>    in voiceB:  e4 f g
>>                \anchor #'myanchor
>>                a
>
> You mean instead of writing "(", or "\<" or "\startTrillSpan" one
> would write "\connect" and that would instantiate the grob denoted
> by the first argument?

Yes.

> I think that sounds good. But the second argument could be omitted as
> the anchor itself is unique and would know itself where it is.

Well, guaranteeing uniqueness in a large score is difficult.
Additionally, it might be a help for editing purposes to see the
target voice.  So maybe this could be an optional argument.

I think that perhaps the following would be useful also, making the
anchor name in `\connect' optional.

  in voiceA:  c4
              \connect Slur voiceB
               d e f

  in voiceB:  e4 f g
              \anchor \default
              a

This would tell lilypond to use the next anchor in voiceB, taking away
the burden of bookkeeping anchor names.

> And I don't know if an additional argument for overrides would be
> necessary: This could be handled as usual, [...]

OK.


    Werner