On Wed 16 Oct 2024 at 09:36:52 (-0500), Cameron Hall wrote:
> I just had the same exact problem a few days ago. See this
> thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2024-10/msg00077.html
I noticed that, and spent a few minutes looking for when this change
took place, and for a description/definition of the two different
syntaxes, without success.
> Simply adding an empty musical construct (like {} or <>) after the
> inner repeat block will fix it. I wish Lilypond would commit to the new
> syntax going forward and issue a warning or something (though obviously
> still support it for backwards compatibility on scores that have an
> older version declaration).
I don't think \version has ever behaved like that. AFAIK it has
three uses:
. for humans to record the version for which each file was written
. an indication that this file is too new for lilypond to process
. the point from which convert-ly starts to make its syntax changes
Only the last of these is an active role.
Cheers,
David.
