[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:06:46 +0100
On 25 January 2012 22:52, James <address@hidden> wrote:
> So someone is going to have to convince me that \bar is bad.
I'll try (but bear in mind that I am not the one who wrote this
recommendation in the NR). ;-)
> I assume (and there is no explanation so if anyone can enlighten me)
> this is for things like midi?
Yeah, that's one point, the MIDI rendering.
But I think the main argument would be that AFAIK it is *impossible*
to use \alternative *without* using \repeat volta first.
> Actually I am struggling to think why this would be such a problem.
> I've just set over 2,000 measures of Schubert - 2 Trumpet Parts and
> 1 Clarinet plus some snippets of other instruments - and there are
> lots of repeated sections with a |: .... :|
> To have to use anything but \bar "|:" would be incredibly tedious.
Is \repeat volta 2 really more tedious than \bar "|:" ?
You'll need to convince me on that one!
\repeat volta 2 (and the appropriate indentation) clearly shows what
are the repeated passages.
Furthermore I guess it should be possible to easily remove the repeats
by removing the Volta_engraver (I never tried). How would you tweak
the Bar_engraver to engrave normal bar lines but to replace repeat
bar lines by normal ones? Maybe possible but not easy, isn't it?
> It didn't cause me any problems and in fact when I used \bar ":|:" when
> it fell at the end of a line break I was happy to see that LP 'did the
> right thing' and printed a :| and a |: on the two lines (at least I am
> sure she did - I'm too tired to check).
Do I need to say that \repeat volta 2 does that automatically? :-)
Xavier Scheuer <address@hidden>
Re: repeat, David Kastrup, 2012/01/25
Re: repeat, Thomas Morley, 2012/01/25
Re: repeat, Xavier Scheuer, 2012/01/25
- repeat, Ole Schmidt, 2012/01/25