On 25 January 2012 22:52, James <[email protected]> wrote: > > So someone is going to have to convince me that \bar is bad.
I'll try (but bear in mind that I am not the one who wrote this recommendation in the NR). ;-) > I assume (and there is no explanation so if anyone can enlighten me) > this is for things like midi? Yeah, that's one point, the MIDI rendering. But I think the main argument would be that AFAIK it is *impossible* to use \alternative *without* using \repeat volta first. > Actually I am struggling to think why this would be such a problem. > I've just set over 2,000 measures of Schubert - 2 Trumpet Parts and > 1 Clarinet plus some snippets of other instruments - and there are > lots of repeated sections with a |: .... :| > > To have to use anything but \bar "|:" would be incredibly tedious. Is \repeat volta 2 really more tedious than \bar "|:" ? You'll need to convince me on that one! \repeat volta 2 (and the appropriate indentation) clearly shows what are the repeated passages. Furthermore I guess it should be possible to easily remove the repeats by removing the Volta_engraver (I never tried). How would you tweak the Bar_engraver to engrave normal bar lines but to replace repeat bar lines by normal ones? Maybe possible but not easy, isn't it? > It didn't cause me any problems and in fact when I used \bar ":|:" when > it fell at the end of a line break I was happy to see that LP 'did the > right thing' and printed a :| and a |: on the two lines (at least I am > sure she did - I'm too tired to check). Do I need to say that \repeat volta 2 does that automatically? :-) Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
