Le 02/07/2022 à 18:14, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:55 AM Jean Abou Samra <j...@abou-samra.fr> wrote:
Le 02/07/2022 à 16:04, Simon Albrecht a écrit :
> Hi David and others,
>
> On 01/07/2022 12:32, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't think so. The problem is that repeats now support
putting the
>> \alternative phrase inside of the construct since that is a
saner way of
>> doing things. But the previous way is still supported for
compatibility
>> reasons. Your input file could be interpreted either way, and
the way
>> LilyPond interprets it is not the one you intended.
>>
>> This is a design problem I think, and not a matter of you
misreading the
>> documentation. No idea what a long-term resolution would look
like.
>
>
> I agree that the new syntax is more sensible. Wouldn’t it be an
option
> to deprecate the old syntax and disallow it in a future stable
> release? It seems to me like it would be worth it, even if
convert-ly
> may only give a “Not smart enough, do it manually”-type warning.
I am not sure that it is worth it. With \alternative being a
frequently
used construct, this is going to be pretty disruptive…
Maybe it's possible to introduce other syntax, like another
spelling for
\alternative, or just using \volta without an \alternative block
(there
are reasons why this doesn't produce volta brackets right now, but
there
was a back-and-forth in that respect and I don't recall how it
ended up
exactly).
I can't currently run 2.23.10 on my Mac, so I can't try it,
What is the problem you are encountering? I think that normally, it
should work on all 64-bit-capable Macs.
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
