Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests

[James]

On 02/06/14 17:38, David Kastrup wrote:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Am 02.06.2014 09:51, schrieb Brian Eve:
>>> \version "2.18.2-1"
>>>
>>> {
>>> \clef bass
>>> \compressFullBarRests
>>> \override Rest #'staff-position = #0
>>>    R1*6
>>> <<  g4. e >> << f d >> <<e4 d >>
>>>    a1
>>>    R1*6
>>> <<  b8 e8 >>
>>>    r8 r4 r2
>>>    R1*6
>>>    R1
>>>    r
>>>    R
>>> }
>> No, that's very wrong code.
>>
>> With these << >> you are actually telling LilyPond to print
>> independent voices while you want to write chords.
> No, he doesn't.  << >> does not imply multiple voices unless you use \\
> inside.  It's less readable notation than proper chords like
>
>    <g e>4. <f d> <e d>4
>
> but it leads to the same events being processed (and consequently the
> same result being engraved) even though the music expression itself is
> different.
>
>> This may work in your example but you would definitely run into
>> problems very soon.
> Not really.
>
>> But I assume this is not what you _want_ - you will want to have the
>> polyphonic part with independent stems.
> Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains
> incorrect.
>
> Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed
> want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord.  But
> they are valid nevertheless.
>
Does that mean using << >> without the \\ is acceptable or just an
unfortunate side effect of (for want of a better phrase) not being more
strict when parsing << >> without the \\?

James