Thanks Marc.
https://codereview.appspot.com/120480043/diff/100001/Documentation/notation/input.itely File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right): https://codereview.appspot.com/120480043/diff/100001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode2747 Documentation/notation/input.itely:2747: @emph{two} @code{\score} blocks; one for MIDI (with unfolded repeats) On 2014/09/28 12:40:00, marc wrote:
On 2014/09/27 21:48:15, J_lowe wrote: > On 2014/09/27 16:53:21, marc wrote: > > this is a bit misleading IMHO: > > > > You don't need two \score blocks when using \unfoldRepeats > > but you rather need \unfoldRepeats when dealing with both
printable output
and > > MIDI > > OK just to confirm the example given (and so hence my misleading
wording) is
> > %% > \score { > ... music ... > \layout { } > } > \score { > \unfoldRepeats { > ... music ... > } > \midi { } > } > %% > > But simply writing > > %% > \score { > \unfoldRepeats { > ... music ... > } > \layout { } > \midi { } > } > %% > > is OK? And the 'convention' (of some I suppose) to have two score
blocks is to
> simply make it easier to separate the notation part of the LilyPond
input file
> from the MIDI part of the LilyPond input file?
I think so. Probably my remarks were misleading, too.
I'd rather rewrite the paragraph to something like:
In order to restrict the effect of @code{\unfoldRepeats} to the MIDI
output only
while generating printable scores as well, it is necessary to make
@emph{...
I'd read your original text as: "if I want to use \unfoldRepeats, I'll
have to
include two \score blocks", but this is not true - in cases where you need MIDI output only, there
is no
need for a second \score.
Sorry for my rather clumsy explanations ...
Done. https://codereview.appspot.com/120480043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel