Le 02/07/2022 à 16:04, Simon Albrecht a écrit :
> Hi David and others,
>
> On 01/07/2022 12:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't think so. The problem is that repeats now support putting the
>> \alternative phrase inside of the construct since that is a saner way of
>> doing things. But the previous way is still supported for compatibility
>> reasons. Your input file could be interpreted either way, and the way
>> LilyPond interprets it is not the one you intended.
>>
>> This is a design problem I think, and not a matter of you misreading the
>> documentation. No idea what a long-term resolution would look like.
>
>
> I agree that the new syntax is more sensible. Wouldn’t it be an option
> to deprecate the old syntax and disallow it in a future stable
> release? It seems to me like it would be worth it, even if convert-ly
> may only give a “Not smart enough, do it manually”-type warning.
I am not sure that it is worth it. With \alternative being a frequently
used construct, this is going to be pretty disruptive…
Maybe it's possible to introduce other syntax, like another spelling for
\alternative, or just using \volta without an \alternative block (there
are reasons why this doesn't produce volta brackets right now, but there
was a back-and-forth in that respect and I don't recall how it ended up
exactly).
I can't currently run 2.23.10 on my Mac, so I can't try it, but could
\repeat volta 2 {
{\repeat unfold 8 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }}
\alternative {
\volta 1 { g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 }
\volta 2 { g8 r8 r8 g,8 r8 }
}
solve the problem (by putting the repeat unfold in a sequential music wrapper, and thus breaking its looking for an alternative?)
Carl