James <pkx1...@gmail.com> writes: > Hello, > > On 5 March 2012 15:20, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> Neil Thornock <neilthorn...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> In my mind, the real bug is that \cadenzaOff does not seem to turn the >>> cadenza off immediately, but rather one measure later. I'm not sure >>> why it behaves as it does. >> >> It resets timing to normal, and "normal" does not mean the end of a >> measure. >> > > Normal from what perspective? Where it left off before \cadenzaOn or > simply that it starts back at '0' immediately \cadenzaOff > > I'm wondering if we need something (a sentence of two) in the NR to > avoid what is obviously something that does confuse people.
I still have not figured out the exact reasoning behind this. But it does not seem to be much more than "stop advancing time in measure" "start advancing time in measure again". If there is no material left to fill the bar, the measure will not get full. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
