On Tuesday 04 April 2006 20.42, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > I'd start with 4. because they're independent from the rest, and we can > readily test the rest of those.
I'm now reworking repeats. While I'm at it, I attempt to generally clean up the repeat code. Plan: - Move some repeat C++ code from parser.yy to Scheme (according to TODO comment) - Attempt to remove various repeat iterators: Let \repeat be more like a music function, which constructs a SequentialMusic containing the repeated musics. Create new events that signal tuplet brackets, percents, etc. Known issues: - I assume that \alternative is invalid for percent and tremolo repeats. - unfold-repeats will break, unless I do something about it. I think I'll create a hack for now (store a copy of the repeated music, which is ignored by iterators, but which unfold-repeats can use to reconstruct an unfolded repeat). I think the proper way would be to implement unfold-repeats as a music macro, but that requires that we have music macros (which we haven't), and it would also require \repeat to be a true music function. -- Erik _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
