Le 15/11/2022 à 22:41, Paul Scott a écrit :
On 11/15/22 1:57 PM, Jean Abou Samra wrote:Le 15/11/2022 à 21:50, Paul Scott a écrit :What about creating all the parts for a score? I certainly don't want to type all the common structure in each part.It is really that troublesome? It's the way it's intended to be used.Can you show me where the documentation says that?
The first sentence of https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/notation/long-repeats.html#simple-repeats is "This is the syntax for a repeat without variation:\repeat volta repeatcount musicexpr
where musicexpr is the music expression to be repeated."
Note: "musicexpr is the music expression to be repeated".
Implying that \repeat volta { ... } in a "timing" variable
is trying to repeat a sequence of spacer rests.
Afterwards:
|"\repeat segno| differs from |\repeat volta| only in the resulting
notation."
I do agree that the recommendation against differing repeat structures is not blindingly obvious, and this is partly the topic of this issue: https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6373 where you can see that one doc example was accidentally using differing repeat structures, and it broke in the course of the 2.23 series. And I was already worried about compatibility back then ...
You will find that \section and \fine only affect their staff,I have already NOT found that.so you're already forced to duplicate those.No.
Try
\version "2.23.81"
<<
\new Staff { c'1 \section }
\new Staff { c'1 }
>>
and you will see that only the first staff has a double
bar line.
So, this won't work:
\version "2.23.81"
timing = {
s1
\section
}
<<
\new Staff << \timing { c'1 } >>
\new Staff { c'1 }
>>
Although this *will* work (and is supported):
\version "2.23.81"
timing = {
s1
\section
}
<<
\new Staff << \timing { c'1 } >>
\new Staff << \timing { c'1 } >>
>>
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
