Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread David Kastrup 

Ok, since I am not apparently getting _any_ answers but just unrelated
buzzphrases pasted to the top of the quoted communication time and
again, I will briefly point out first how we communicate on this list.
One quotes the _pertinent_ part of the documentation first, then adds
one's answers usually in-line to the pertinent questions.

John Roper  writes:

>> On Feb 4, 2017 5:59 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper  writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
>>> >>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
>>> >>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>>> >
>>> > Design update.
>>>
>>> So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
>>> makes implementing a particular design easier?

Still unanswered.

>>> > It looks better and attracts more users to the software.
>>>
>>> Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
>>> through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
>>> and then being attracted to the software it advertises.
>>>
>>> At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
>>> rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
>>> change.
>
> I wrote the Blended system to fit all of the requirements for
> redesigning the website (not documentation) for LilyPond. A nice side
> effect was that I can use it for other things.

Not addressing the request.

Could you give concrete examples of stuff that would be expected to
improve under a change of the content management system to Blended?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread John Roper 
I wrote the Blended system to fit all of the requirements for redesigning
the website (not documentation) for LilyPond. A nice side effect was that I
can use it for other things.

On Feb 4, 2017 5:59 PM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:

> John Roper  writes:
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Roper  writes:
> >>>
> >>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
> >>> >>> > definitely be an option.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
> >>> >
> >>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
> >>>
> >>> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
> >>>
> >>> > Blended exports human-readable files.
> >>>
> >>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
> >>> PDF, HTML, plain text.
> >>>
> >>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
> >>>
> >>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
> >>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap
> from
> >>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
> >
> > Design update.
>
> So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
> makes implementing a particular design easier?
>
> > It looks better and attracts more users to the software.
>
> Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
> through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
> and then being attracted to the software it advertises.
>
> At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
> rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
> change.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread David Kastrup 
John Roper  writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper  writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
>>> >>> > definitely be an option.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>>> >
>>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
>>>
>>> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
>>>
>>> > Blended exports human-readable files.
>>>
>>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
>>> PDF, HTML, plain text.
>>>
>>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
>>>
>>> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
>>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
>>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>
> Design update.

So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
makes implementing a particular design easier?

> It looks better and attracts more users to the software.

Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
and then being attracted to the software it advertises.

At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
change.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread David Kastrup 
Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 04.02.2017 um 22:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>>> be an option.
>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> Breaking the technical tie between documentation and website makes it
> possible to update the (much smaller) website independently from the
> documentation system.

So what updates are expected to be done by who in consequence of such a
change?

> Basically I have the impression that we will never change the basic
> documentation system anymore because it's such a complex and
> historically grown system. And everytime someone comes to us proposing
> more-than-cosmetic changes they are eventually rejected because they
> are not compatible with that inflexible system.

So which more-than-cosmetic changes are we anticipating in consequence
of a change to the website generation?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread Urs Liska 
Am 04.02.2017 um 22:16 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>> be an option.
> What advantages do you expect from it?

Breaking the technical tie between documentation and website makes it
possible to update the (much smaller) website independently from the
documentation system. Basically I have the impression that we will never
change the basic documentation system anymore because it's such a
complex and historically grown system. And everytime someone comes to us
proposing more-than-cosmetic changes they are eventually rejected
because they are not compatible with that inflexible system.

-- 
Urs Liska
https://openlilylib.org
http://lilypondblog.org

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread John Roper 
Design update. It looks better and attracts more users to the software.

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> John Roper  writes:
>
> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Urs Liska  writes:
> >>>
> >>> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> >>> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >>> >>  ha scritto:
> >>> >>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
> >>> >>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
> >>> >>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
> >>> >>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >>> >>> how do you handle translations?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> >>> >> (as compared to other SSG)
> >>> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> >>> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> >>> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template
> system?
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > I can't comment on that right now.
> >>> >
> >>> >> ...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> >>> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source
> files
> >>> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> > +1
> >>> >
> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
> definitely
> >>> > be an option.
> >>>
> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
> >
> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
>
> Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?
>
> > Blended exports human-readable files.
>
> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
> PDF, HTML, plain text.
>
> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
>
> My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>



-- 
John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA
http://jmroper.com/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread David Kastrup 
John Roper  writes:

>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>>
>>> Urs Liska  writes:
>>>
>>> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>>> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>>> >>  ha scritto:
>>> >>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
>>> >>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
>>> >>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
>>> >>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> >>> how do you handle translations?
>>> >>
>>> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>>> >> (as compared to other SSG)
>>> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>>> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>>> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > I can't comment on that right now.
>>> >
>>> >> ...
>>> >>
>>> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>>> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>>> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > +1
>>> >
>>> > Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>>> > be an option.
>>>
>>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> It is easier for users to write and it looks better.

Who are "users"?  What are we wanting them to write?

> Blended exports human-readable files.

We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
PDF, HTML, plain text.

> Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/

My question probably was not clear enough.  What tangible benefits for
LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
a move to Blended as its content management system?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread Simon Albrecht 

A: Because it messes with the order in which people read text.
Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing?

Just sayin’… :-)

Best, Simon


On 04.02.2017 22:21, John Roper wrote:
It is easier for users to write and it looks better. Blended exports 
human-readable files. Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/


On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup > wrote:


Urs Liska > writes:

> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>> > ha
scritto:
>>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
>>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
>>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
>>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> how do you handle translations?
>>
>> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> (as compared to other SSG)
>> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template
system?
>>
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
>> ...
>>
>> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html
source files
>> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should
definitely
> be an option.

What advantages do you expect from it?

--
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org 
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user





--
John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA
http://jmroper.com/


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread John Roper 
It is easier for users to write and it looks better. Blended exports
human-readable files. Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/

On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Urs Liska  writes:
>
> > Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
> >> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
> >>  ha scritto:
> >>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
> >>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
> >>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
> >>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
> >>> how do you handle translations?
> >>
> >> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
> >> (as compared to other SSG)
> >> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
> >> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
> >> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
> >>
> >
> > I can't comment on that right now.
> >
> >> ...
> >>
> >> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
> >> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
> >> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> > be an option.
>
> What advantages do you expect from it?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>



-- 
John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA
http://jmroper.com/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread David Kastrup 
Urs Liska  writes:

> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>>  ha scritto:
>>> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
>>> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
>>> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
>>> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>>> how do you handle translations?
>>
>> Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> (as compared to other SSG)
>> I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>>
>
> I can't comment on that right now.
>
>> ...
>>
>> Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>> and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
> be an option.

What advantages do you expect from it?

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website]

2017-02-04 Thread John Roper 
Blended now has support for *eleven* markup languages and it has a new
website!

http://jmroper.com/blended/

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 2:39 PM, John Roper  wrote:

> There is a template system. You setup page templates and Blended inserts
> the text from any file into that template.
>
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:34 PM, Urs Liska  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Am 03.02.2017 um 18:20 schrieb Federico Bruni:
>> > Il giorno ven 3 feb 2017 alle 11:31, John Roper
>> >  ha scritto:
>> >> OK, I was asking because I have written a static command line HTML
>> >> site generator that builds from HTML, Markdown, reStruturedText,
>> >> Textile, Plain Text (.txt), and Microsoft Word (.docx).
>> >> http://jmroper.com/blended Is that versatile enough for you? Also,
>> >> how do you handle translations?
>> >
>> > Yet another static site generator (SSG)? The purpose is simplicity?
>> > (as compared to other SSG)
>> > I don't have time to test it in the coming days.
>> > The templates are simple HTML files with the added value of using
>> > {{variables}}? I mean, you are not using any existing template system?
>> >
>>
>> I can't comment on that right now.
>>
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Personally, I think that switching (for the website only!) from
>> > texinfo to a static site generator based on markdown/html source files
>> > and a simple template system would be wonderful.
>> >
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Separating website content from general documentation should definitely
>> be an option.
>> Urs
>>
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>
>
>
>
> --
> John Roper
> Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> Boston, MA USA
> http://jmroper.com/
>



-- 
John Roper
Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
Boston, MA USA
http://jmroper.com/
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Position of fingerings

2017-02-04 Thread SoundsFromSound 
Max Xiong wrote
> How do I make the first fingering of a chord appear on the top staff line?
> 
> Example:
> {
> c'^1 e'^3 g'^5
> }
> Is there an easy way to make 1 appear on the top staff line and 3 and 5
> above it? Thanks!
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list

> lilypond-user@

> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


Hi Max,

What version of LilyPond are you using?

Have you checked out the fingering section? Lots of good info there about
how to position fingerings on top, side, etc.

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/inside-the-staff#fingering-instructions

i.e. \set fingeringOrientations = #'(left)

etc.





-
composer | sound designer | asmr artist 
LilyPond Tutorials (for beginners) --> http://bit.ly/bcl-lilypond
--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Position-of-fingerings-tp199724p199725.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Position of fingerings

2017-02-04 Thread Max Xiong 
How do I make the first fingering of a chord appear on the top staff line?

Example:
{

}
Is there an easy way to make 1 appear on the top staff line and 3 and 5
above it? Thanks!
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Multiple markings

2017-02-04 Thread Wols Lists 
On 04/02/17 14:10, David Sumbler wrote:
> So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not
> allow multiple marks or tempo markings?

Probably because the underlying code makes it very tricky.
> 
> If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could
> have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as the
> existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers.  E.g. could we
> have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?

Kieran put in a lot of effort iirc to add all this extra stuff. I
remember things from long ago when it was "one mark per barline" and,
because I think RehearsalMark resolved to an ordinary mark you couldn't
even put a rehearsal mark on the same barline as an ordinary mark. That
even that took so long to appear implies it was NOT simple.

I suspect if Kieran could have just stacked marks he would have done. He
might chime in and tell us. If you want to look at how a tempo mark is
implemented you might be able to do it for yourself :-) That said, I
wanted to do it and just couldn't get to grips with it :-)

But I think if you want multiple marks the obvious solution is to stack
them in a column.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Multiple markings

2017-02-04 Thread David Sumbler 
A text mark in Lilypond is represented by a grob called a
RehearsalMark; the grob for a tempo marking is called a MetronomeMark.

I wonder whether perhaps these names reflect something about the
history of Lilypond: they are certainly not accurate descriptions of
what the objects are used for - e.g. very often tempo markings make no
reference to a metronome.  I also suspect that history gives a clue to
why Lilypond allows only one of each of these objects at any point in a
score unless one performs some sort of programming acrobatics to work
around the restriction.

In fact this restriction, certainly in the case of RehearsalMark, has
no logic to it.  So either it is somehow hard-wired at a deep level, or
it must be there presumably because at one time it did make sense.

The clue is in the names, perhaps.  It generally does not make sense to
have more than one actual rehearsal mark at a single point in a piece
of music (although I can think of rare circumstances in which there
might be editorial reasons for doing so).  But the RehearsalMark object
is now not used only for rehearsal marks.  For instance, even according
to the documentation it is used for putting a fermata sign over a
barline.  Now, there is no reason on earth why a fermata sign and a
rehearsal mark should never appear at the same point, yet Lilypond
throws out a warning and refuses to print one of the objects unless we
go to extra lengths to get what we actually want.

A RehearsalMark is actually a very useful thing for aligning something
with a barline - just recently I wanted it for the titles of the
various sections of a piece.  Similarly, there might be times when the
alignment (or other) characteristics of MetronomeMark are useful for
some other text, which might or might not occur at the same point as an
actual tempo marking.

The only case where having more than one of either of these objects
causes a problem (only for midi output and easy for Lilypond to deal
with, even then) is if 2 actual metronome marks occur at the same
point.

Would it not make better sense for Lilypond to accept what is asked for
without complaining and print all the requested items?  We don't
actually need to have a warning about the supposed error if we can see 
the result in the output.  If it is a genuine mistake (e.g. putting
"Allegro" in most parts and "allegro" in another) then we can see that,
and it won't take long to locate the error.

So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not
allow multiple marks or tempo markings?

If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could
have an additional grob or 2 which have the same characteristics as the
existing one(s) but without the restriction on numbers.  E.g. could we
have a TextMark grob in addition to RehearsalMark?

David

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Section repeat

2017-02-04 Thread Hans Åberg 

> On 4 Feb 2017, at 01:58, Flaming Hakama by Elaine  
> wrote:

> > Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
> > I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
> > actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
> > you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
> > to vault over one volta bracket, not two.
> 
> The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players 
> must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it 
> differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending), 
> take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they 
> ignore it.
> 
> Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is 
> separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to 
> remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure.
> 
> With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap.  
> 
> So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach.

It seems that the end repeat symbol is interpreted differently with and without 
alternatives:

Without alternatives, it means repeat a number of times, and if it is not two, 
can be specified with a "x" at the beginning of the section. The end 
repeat symbol is then skipped over the last time.

When there are alternatives, one expects it to mean to jump back to the begin 
repeat symbol. So then the last alternative should not have it.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Section repeat

2017-02-04 Thread Hans Åberg 
Yt was David Wright who wrote what you quote, not me.

> On 4 Feb 2017, at 01:58, Flaming Hakama by Elaine  
> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 1:12 PM, [David Wright ] 
> wrote:
> 
> > Comparing yesterday's version (2 and 4 separate) and A (2&4 together),
> > I'd maintain that A describes the music more faithfully, and is
> > actually easier to read: when you reach 15 on the 4th-time through,
> > you've not only played all the measures involved, but you only have
> > to vault over one volta bracket, not two.
> 
> The counterpoint to this insight is that with the combined ending, players 
> must read the same symbol (the end repeat barline) and interpret it 
> differently different times--the first time they encounter it (2nd ending), 
> take the repeat, and the second time they encounter it (4th ending), they 
> ignore it.
> 
> Especially since there are more than 2 repeats, and this occurrence is 
> separated by a 3rd ending, you can introduce more work to the musicians to 
> remember where they are and what to do when they get to that measure.
> 
> With the separate endings, there is less confusion about the roadmap.  
> 
> So, I think there are benefits and drawbacks to each approach.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user