David Kastrup wrote Sunday, June 07, 2009 8:22 AM
Jay Anderson <horndud...@gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Paul Scott<psl...@ultrasw.com>
wrote:
I don't mind having a separate file for the midi output but not
being
able to factor out the common timing and dynamics costs a lot of
input time and makes it a lot harder to make sure I haven't
dropped a
bar somewhere.
Actually I found that having the repeats in each part made it
easier
to notice that bars were off. Lilypond throws errors where it
thinks
the repeat timing problem is without having to look too much at
the
pdf output.
There is no point in offering a half-broken feature and not fix
it,
claiming that it was a bad idea in the first place.
It's not really broken. \unfoldRepeats simply
changes all repeats to \unfoldRepeats. If no
repeat appears in a section of music clearly it
can't be changed. Perhaps the Reference Manual
should be clearer on this point, although it is
stated in section 3.5.4 Repeats in MIDI.
So either the external repeat structure feature should be removed
or
fixed. Everything else is asking for trouble and problem reports
and is
causing the users headaches for no good reason.
No. The extra functionality you're requesting
may be useful, but it's lack not a case for
removing a perfectly good and useful feature.
Trevor
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
