On 21 September 2012 17:46, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Another parser baddy is \alternatives since it means that no \repeat
> expression can be considered complete without checking for potentially
> following alternatives. It would make more sense if the alternatives
> were written _inside_ of the repeat. Much more sense actually.
About the only part of the thread I could follow (I _do_ try.. honest!).
The NR says at the moment that the construct is
\repeat volta repeatcount musicexpr
\alternative {
{ musicexpr }
}
For some reason I have always found this awkward as I consider the
alternative as 'part' of the repeat 'construct'.
So if you mean something like
\repeat volta repeatcount { musicexpr
\alternative {
{ musicexpr }
} }
Or similar would be better in the parser, I would find it more logical
as writing it down in .ly language.
Maybe there are problems when you have
\repeat volta repeatcount { musicexpr
\alternative {
{ musicexpr }
\alternative {
{ musicexpr }
\alternative {
{ musicexpr }
} }
or maybe not
Anyway, I can feel myself sinking in a pool of ignorance, so I'll stop
now, but I would say, assuming I have that right, that this kind of
change would be better for 'me' (as a user) as I now think of thinks
in 'container' (or blocks I guess) and this is just a \repeat { }
block,
James
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
