Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes: > I am a bit disappointed that the discussion about \bar ":|." > rises half a year after the patch went through the revision > process.
If you think this is the first time, you have missed a few times. The revision process does not incorporate user feedback that we have seen in between, and it is usually rather sloppy. If I would complain every time a feature of mine did not get any review at all during the regular review phase, people would be even more annoyed at me than they already are. > The basic idea behind the bar line interface based on Harm's > work, and I like the idea of having a 1:1 representation of the > bar line stringwise. For specifying the visual composition of a particular bar type: full agreement. That makes excellent sense. What does not make sense is to require the user to specify the visual composition of a bar every time he wants to use it. That's WYSIWYG without style sheets. > But if anyone wants to implement aliases, go ahead. I was of the impression that this was undesired. > I'd rather see lilyponds input structure being optimized. The \repeat > construct doesnt allow for d'al segno, da capo and stuff like that. > As I mentioned elsewhere, I seldom use the repeat sign explicitely, I > try to get along with \repeat volta. Moreover, I find it very annoying > to end every piece with an explicit \bar "|." I'd like to see that > lilypond ends a piece with "|." by default – in the rare cases where I > need a different ending bar line, I would code \bar "|" or \bar "||" > or whatever. I am not sure this would not be even more annoying when doing music theory texts with lilypond-book. > If lily would offer a better way to _structurize_ music, this > discussion would be rather academic. We'd still need a way to configure the visual appearance. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
