Dan Eble wrote > The snippet has \mark 1 at measures 2 and 10, as well as other duplicates. > > I propose that it does not make sense for a specific rehearsal mark to > exist at more than one point in a score, that repeating a mark in a real > score is most likely a mistake, and that it would be appropriate for a > future version of LilyPond to issue a warning or error about it by > default. In that regard, the current snippet sets a bad example.
I'm undecided whether I'd fully agree. For a user mark "1" looks entirely different than mark "A", although internally it's the same. Otoh, if one thinks to implement features like "go from mark F to back to mark A" it's likely needed to have unique marks. > I also propose that the current snippet exceeds the scope of its > description. There is no need to repeat rehearsal marks to demonstrate > starting them from a given number. Agreed, so I updated http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=369 with your proposal. > This doesn’t mean that I think it should be impossible to mix letter and > number marks within a score. If it is valuable, I’m willing to submit a > separate snippet to demonstrate whatever you think would be lost by > reducing the scope of this one (other than repeating marks). No need for it, we already have an example how to format RehearsalMarks in the NR http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/bars#rehearsal-marks <http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/bars#rehearsal-marks> Thanks, Harm -- Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Dev-f88644.html _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
