On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+0000), Graham King wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote: > > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote: > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.” > > > > That’s sufficient reason for me. =) > > Good answer. > > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts. > > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide... > > ~Chris > > I guess Gould has a point. I've just realised that, under my system as I > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice. For example, in > the > attachment below, T has two bars "9". But apart from an ill-chosen number (in > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal marks". > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result. In practice, for the > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be quite short > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.
This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
