Comment #32 on issue 1110 by [email protected]: Wrong octave of repetition chord
with \relative and #{ #} syntax
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110
The dilemma basically is that "last chord" is not well-defined. \relative
has an order for "last pitch" that it follows. The parser has an order
for "last default duration" that it follows. Both are different but
thankfully orthogonal. "last chord" is not. It gets garbled when
\relative does not know which chords belong together, so it makes sense to
define "last chord" like \relative does. Unfortunately we don't know when
and whether at all \relative will run on the material, so a \relative-only
answer to the order is not going to fly.
However, time order (like shown with parallel music which is _not_ two
voices) is too different from what LilyPond does elsewhere to make much
sense. It would be very easy to implement.
Is
input/regression/repeat-tremolo-chord-rep.ly
a corner case? We have here
\relative c' {
<c e g>1
\repeat tremolo 4 q16
\repeat tremolo 4 { q16 }
\repeat tremolo 4 { c16 q16 }
}
Before 2240,we _had_to involve the parser in the "last chord" concept
because only the parser had the information which EventChord would even
count as a chord. Personally, I think a single run through the whole score
when iteration _starts_ is probably the most useful place. Forcing the
user to be explicit by doing last chord substitution when called with a
command is even more predictable, but inconvenient.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
