David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
> Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes:
>
>> On 13.08.2016 10:29, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> \part.1 in contrast is slightly different. I'll work on improvements by
>>> and by but at the current point of time this is not really at a "proudly
>>> announceable by snippets" state. It still has drawbacks and irks.
>>
>> It seems that others as well as I have been thinking it is a great new
>> feature and started to use it quite often, so I wonder if there is any
>> kind of caveat for using it yet: will the functionality or syntax
>> change? or are those changes merely concerning
>> implementation/performance issues?
>
> At the current point of time I think that \part.1 does not copy the
> music expression. That's pretty bad if you do stuff like
>
> <<
> \transpose c' d' { \part.1 }
> \transpose c' d' { \part.1 }
>>>
>
> That's sort of a deal-breaker so I'll address it soon.
I was wrong about that part. Music expressions were actually copied,
however others (like scores and output definitions) were not.
A fix for that is proposed as issue 4957.
> Also you cannot use \part.1 everywhere that \partI would work: it's a
> subset. In particular, it won't work very satisfactorily for post
> events. That's not as bad as the first problem: if it doesn't work
> yet, it doesn't and one sees it right away.
That one still holds.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
