bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Spam??] repeated time signatures


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: [Spam??] repeated time signatures
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:10:59 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130329 Thunderbird/17.0.5

Am 29.04.2013 17:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
Urs Liska wrote Monday, April 29, 2013 3:50 PM


Am 29.04.2013 16:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:

Urs Liska wrote  Monday, April 29, 2013 3:02 PM

The NR (1.2.3 "Displaying Rhythms") states that time signatures "are
printed at the beginning of a piece and whenever the time signature
changes."

But if I write

music = {
    \time 3/4
    R2.*4
    \time 3/4
    R2.
}

the time signature is printed a second time although it doesn't change
(to my understanding)
Rather surprisingly there is no bug report describing this, although it
has been present since the beaming behaviour was changed several
years ago.

a) Is this intended behaviour? And if yes, shouldn't it be documented
I don't think it is intended, so it should be recorded as a bug.
Copying to bug list for bug squad.
I think, David Nalesnik's comment is valid.
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-04/msg00852.html

So I think the behaviour shouldn't be changed, but the documentation.
I read the opposite in David's comment.  The documentation correctly
says what should happen, and what used to happen prior to around 2010,
but since then the code has behaved incorrectly IMHO.  So the
bug report should record the incorrect behaviour of the code.  As we don't
usually document buggy behaviour, the docs should not be changed,
unless, maybe, to remove the statement either way.

Trevor
Hm, maybe I've done too much today to see it ;-)
Rereading David's comment after yours, I don't see anymore what he intended to say.

But if you're right and a repeated \time signature shouldn't be displayed by default, would it be then the right way to include David's engraver by default? And do the same for key signatures and clefs?

Or should a fix be tackled at a lower level?

Urs




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]