|
From: | Simon Albrecht |
Subject: | Re: Incomplete measure numbering in repeat |
Date: | Sat, 14 Jan 2017 16:49:44 +0100 |
On 14.01.2017 16:13, David Wright wrote:
On Sat 14 Jan 2017 at 10:58:58 (+0100), Simon Albrecht wrote:On 14.01.2017 08:05, Menu Jacques wrote:Hello folks, In this example (from Gabrieli, faked time signature), is the second alternative's first measure to be numbered 3, or 2?I can basically think of three options: 2 – if you don’t count repeated bars twice 2a – to stress that it’s an alternative to bar 2 (or 2b as alternative to 2a) 4 – if you do count repeated bars twice
[…]
LilyPond doesn’t support the third option…I don't understand the last sentence.
Well, of course you can do it manually – you can do everything manually. But what LilyPond actually supports is only two alternativeNumberingStyles: numbers and numbers-with-letters (corresponding to the two first options I named above), see the snippet in NR 1.4.1.a.
I’d wish to have three options: \set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'identical \set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'alternative \set Score.voltaBarNumbering = #'sequential Ideally, the third option would number bars like 1 (3) % repeated part 2 % first volta 4 % second voltaThat’s what I’d call sensible support. I think I’ll also raise this as an enhancement request on the issue tracker.
Best, Simon
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |