[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Skip between \marks will be ignored

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: Skip between \marks will be ignored
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 23:26:07 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

Am 01.07.2015 um 22:34 schrieb Thomas Morley:
2015-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:

If there are only skips (s) between two \mark commands, these will be
ignored, a warning given about simultaneous marks, and everything following
in this (input) music expression will not be engraved. It boils down to the

\version "2.19.22"
% same with 2.18


The problem:
Warning about Two simultaneous mark events &c.
All the following music will be junked

Test cases:

Same duration       – \default given     – problem
Same duration       – \default not given – no problem
Different durations – \default given     – problem
Different durations – \default not given – problem


   \mark \default

I submitted Issue 4472
<https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4472>, but wanted to
‘announce’ it here also. It’s quite confusing that it interferes with
\default given or not, isn’t it?

Best regards, Simon

The mark-function needs an argument, see:
#(display mark)

This code: { \mark s4 \mark \default s4 } puts in s4 as the argument
for the first \mark.
Besides it's nonsense, you then have two simultaneous marks.

For this code: { \mark \default s4 \mark \default s4 } be aware that
SkipEvents do not create a NoteColumn.
Meaning both RehearsalMarks try to align themselves to the same item,
as given with the 'break-align-symbols'-property.

At least this is my understanding.

Thus I see no bug here.
You’re right, of course.
I only wonder how I came by the notion that \mark would also work with the \default argument omitted – I could have sworn there was some kind of parser lookahead or so to provide for that case. Either this is outdated info or I deeply confused something. Should have modestly asked before racking my head on the ‘bug’ report :-)
Thanks for clarifying.

Yours, Simon

reply via email to

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