Re: Incomplete measure numbering in repeat

[Simon Albrecht]

On 14.01.2017 16:13, David Wright wrote:
> On Sat 14 Jan 2017 at 10:58:58 (+0100), Simon Albrecht wrote:
> > On 14.01.2017 08:05, Menu Jacques wrote:
> > > Hello folks,
> > >
> > > In this example (from Gabrieli, faked time signature), is the
> > > second alternative's first measure to be numbered 3, or 2?
> > I can basically think of three options:
> > 2 – if you don’t count repeated bars twice
> > 2a – to stress that it’s an alternative to bar 2 (or 2b as
> > alternative to 2a)
> > 4 – if you do count repeated bars twice
[…]
> > LilyPond doesn’t support the third option…
> I don't understand the last sentence.

Well, of course you can do it manually – you can do everything manually. 
But what LilyPond actually supports is only two 
alternativeNumberingStyles: numbers and numbers-with-letters 
(corresponding to the two first options I named above), see the snippet 
in NR 1.4.1.a.
I’d wish to have three options:
\set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'identical
\set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'alternative
\set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'sequential
Ideally, the third option would number bars like
1 (3) % repeated part
2     % first volta
4     % second volta

That’s what I’d call sensible support. I think I’ll also raise this as 
an enhancement request on the issue tracker.

Best, Simon