Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> writes: > Le 25/09/2021 à 09:46, Lukas-Fabian Moser a écrit : >> Hi, >> >>> In short, I propose to make the first argument to >>> \repeat optional, making \repeat n music equivalent to >>> \repeat unfold n music. >> >> Thanks for working on that! >> >> The issue I have with your idea is that to me, \repeat unfold and >> \repeta volta/tremolo have slightly different semantics: >> >> \repeat volta and \repeat tremolo create "time-honored" visual >> indicators for repeated music, so they are commands that correspond >> to special music layouts. >> \repeat unfold saves typing while inputting music. >> >> Of course, the distinction is not very strict, in particular since >> there's \unfoldRepeats. But still I'm not sure it's ideal >> syntax-wise if users have to use the same command for "saving >> typing" and for "creating musical repeat signs / tremolo >> notation". And this, I think, is exacerbated with your suggestion, >> because if \repeat alone is the keystroke-saving command, then >> \repeat volta and \repeat tremolo look like variants of that: Adding >> a qualifier turns the command into something completely different. > > The musical validity of this approach might > be questionable, but LilyPond thinks of these > types of repeats in similar ways. \repeat unfold > does not copy the music n times, it just wraps it > in UnfoldedRepeatedMusic.
It's worth remembering that \repeat unfold , like all \repeat variants, accepts an \alternative clause. And will probably be able to heed it. I am not sure whether \repeat percent does so, but actually interspersing material like <>\< <>\p or so would be perfectly legitimate uses. Whether they make for great syntax is a different question... -- David Kastrup
