On Friday, 27 November 1998, Mats Bengtsson writes:
> Great, finally it's here!!
>
> However, I'm a bit skeptical about the syntax and semantics.
> It should be possible to typeset, for example, the following constructs
>
> _________
> |1. | 2.
> .... :| ......
> (The first repeat of a piece doesn't begin with a "|:" )
fixed in pl10.
> _________
> |1. | 2.
> ...... :|: .... :| ......
should be fairly easy to fix, once all |: :| get announced.
> __________________________
> |1.-3. | Fine | 4.
> ....... :| ........ || ............ |
> Da Capo
if the need arises, we should be able to devise something for say
____________________________
|1. | 2.-4. | 5.
...... :| ........ | ........ |
(suggestions and patches appreciated :-)
we thought about about all kinds of "jumping" (Da Capo, Coda, al Signe,
menuetto stuff, etc.) and decided not add logical language support for
that. It's hairy, there are too many different combinations, it's
possibly ambiguous, and there seems very little need to do so from a
typesetting point of view.
> Do we really need the \repeat at all. Why not typeset the repeat signs
> manually with \bar as before? The semantics is still clear from the input
Repeats however, come in not too many combinations, are clear and rather
straightforward to implement. And there's more need for these. We may
want LilyPond to unfold the repeats, e.g. in scores, and they may affect
barnumbering, e.g. when one (solo) melody does *not* have a repeat.
> if we want to generate midi files with "unfolded" repeats.
Well, we'd need to add something for the volta's then...
> I'm not certain how to deal with the repeat signs within the alternative
> endings, however.
> Also, we need an optional textual argument to each \alternative part
> for the cases where simple consecutive numbering doesn't work.
Seems a bit tricky to do cleanly.
> The integer argument for \repeat is redundant, what would it mean if
> the number didn't match the number of alternative endings?
\notes {
\repeat 65 { { a b c } }
}
means, repeat this 65 times (no alternatives here).
We'll need to know the 65 for barnumbering and unfolding.
> Finally it must be possible to get rid of some of the curly braces,
> it starts to look like LISP.
In the alternative part, you can replace the outer ones, see star.ly:
\alternative < { one verse's text } { next verse's text } >
now you see we need them?
For the \repeat they're just a hack...
Suggestions?
Jan.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/lilypond
