David, On 29 January 2012 02:26, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Nicolas Sceaux <nicolas.sce...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Le 26 janv. 2012 à 11:00, David Kastrup a écrit : >> >>> The bad news is that absolute pitch friends would have to call the \q >>> function (any better name for it?) explicitly. Since q is an input >>> convenience, and relative pitch is also an input convenience, I don't >>> think that there would be much of an affected user base. >> >> I do use absolute pitch mode, together with the q shortcut, so the >> affected user base is non-nil. > > <URL:http://codereview.appspot.com/5595043> > >> What would be the impact of your solution on this kind of code? >> Is it just about adding e.g. \q before the block? > > The user impact is now down to nil. There is no longer any relation of > the implementation to \relative. Since you don't need to call it > manually except for special considerations (like letting it retain > articulations in some passage), \q is now called \chordRepeats. > > I don't think that there are nightmarish corners in the implementation > and behavior any more. >
So we need to make any tweaks to the NR since "...There is no longer any relation of the implementation to \relative..." http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/single-voice#chord-repetition an @warning or @knownissue? Regards -- -- James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
