Re: GDP: first public draft, NR 1.4 Repeats

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:12:38 +1000
Joe Neeman <address@hidden> wrote:

> Normal repeats:
>   I see you have an example with a partial alternative. Maybe you
> should call attention to the \partial in the text, since this is
> something that seems to come up on the user list regularly.

The text already says
"
Repeats with upbeats can be entered in two ways:
"

What else would you propose?  (or are you looking at something
else?)


> Now I know that the organisation of sections is something that has
> been discussed a great deal, so if you have already thought about
> this, please ignore my next comment: in the introduction, you mention
> that repeats come in 4 types. Then you split up into *2* subsections.
> Given the text of the introduction, it seems more natural to split
> the section into 4 subsections (where the volta subsection would
> split further into 2 more subsections).

Yes, we spent a lot of time on this point already.

- we only allow subsubsections; no subsubsubsections.
- for purely aesthetic reasons, I dislike having a subsection with
  a single subsubsection.

If I were willing to relax #2, I suppose we could have one
subsection with the 4 main subsubsections, then a final subsection
containing "manual repeat marks".  I won't throw a fit if I happen
to look at the lilypond docs a year from now and discover that
somebody's done this, but for now I'd rather keep it as is and
move on with other matters.

Cheers,
- Graham