Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes: > The description of \defineBarLine in NR 1.2.5 does > not make it clear that the parameter called bartype > doubles as both the name of the barline being defined > and the definition of the bar line to be used in > the middle of the line (i.e. not at the beginning or > the end.)
> Why not "\defineBarLine normal end start span"? I agree that the simple list of four arguments would be better. I traced the history to find the discussion at the point where the grouping was introduced: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg01031.html I think there might be consensus to reverse that decision. (I would raise a tracker issue, but maybe better to give it a day on the mailing list in case there is other input.) _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
