2013/6/23 Danny <dbpolyph...@gmail.com>:
>> I'm not top posting.
>
> \version "2.16.2"
>
> % If a clef is changed in retrograde it only prints the new clef
> % It does not move the notes to their new locations on the staff
> % All notes here are the same pitch but during clef changes it is printed
> % incorrectly
>
> \relative c' {
> c1 % printed correctly
> \retrograde {
> c %printed correctly
> \clef treble
> c %printed as though in bass clef
> \clef treble
> c % Should be one ledger line above not below the staff in bass clef
> \clef bass
> c % Correctly printed in the assumed Treble clef
> }
> }
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Hi,
thanks for your report.
\retrograde was implemented in 2.13.x
See
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/changes-big-page.html
There you can read:
"A minimal composer toolkit of modal transformations is provided. A
motif may be transposed, inverted and/or converted to its retrograde
within any scale."
This should be read as: "A composer toolkit, with minimal functionality." ;)
In 2.17.-NR
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.17/Documentation/notation/changing-multiple-pitches#retrograde
you can read
"Known issues and warnings
Manual ties inside \retrograde will be broken and generate warnings. ... "
Though not only Ties are broken. As the Nr-example shows Slurs are not
printed. Hairpins will return warnings, every simple \override will
lead to surprising results, setting clef-changes (much more complex,
than a simple \override), too.
So far I've tested.
So yes, \retrograde should be improved.
I'd call it an enhancement-request.
-Harm
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
