lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Feature Request] \compressFullBarRests improvement(s)


From: Alex Loomis
Subject: Re: [Feature Request] \compressFullBarRests improvement(s)
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 09:30:57 -0500

That could be a useful feature but should not me the default. Perhaps an 
override such as

\override MultimeasureRest #'condense-all = ##t

would be helpful. That way the default would still be the intuitive way (2+2 
gives two separate groups) whereas the other is still an option for those who 
want it.



On Dec 22, 2013, at 6:44 AM, Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:

> 
>> I think one of the things that bothers me about this thread is that
>> I don't understand why, if you want a four measure rest you would
>> write 2+2.  For the vast majority of cases, if there are 48 bars
>> between two rehearsal marks I'm happy to see |=48=| between them.
>> So, why write anything but R1*48 in the part in question?  If there
>> *is* a reason then the input can be something different, say R1*32
>> R1*16 to produce |=32=| |=16=|.
> 
> As told earlier: The input of a score should not force the appearance
> of the output.  For example, I like to write one bar per line in the
> input files, interspersed with comments to structure them in five-bars
> blocks.  Writing e.g. `R1*47' heavily disturbs this structure, making
> corrections after inputting the data *much* more time consuming since
> it takes longer to identify the right spot (yes, I'm a die-hard user
> which uses a plain text editor for input).  In this case, it would be
> great if multi-measure rests written as
> 
>  % 15
>  R1*5 |
>  % 20
>  R1*5 |
>  ...
> 
> could be merged properly.
> 
> 
>    Werner
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]