> On Feb 8, 2021, at 20:29, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/21, 5:30 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Dan Eble"
> <lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen+digest=gmail....@gnu.org on behalf of
> d...@faithful.be> wrote:
>
> Gould writes that "[a] thin double barline ... marks the written end of
> the music when this is not the end of the piece" (Behind Bars, p.240).
>
> The statement is in the context of repeated sections: D.S. al Fine, etc.
>
> I'm pretty sure that this is easy to implement. Is there any reason not
> to make this a default?
> —
> Dan
>
> II do not want it to be a default. I want to have control of the bar lines.
The two are not exclusive. There is currently a default, and it doesn't
prevent you from controlling the bar lines.
>
> Ossia staffs do not have thin double bars, as far as I can see.
Only ossia staves that end at the written end of the music are relevant to the
question, and I would think you would want them to have the same bar line as
the main staves in that case.
> The end of music does not have thin double bar lines.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; Gould says it does when it's not the end of
the piece.
> As I'm working my way through entering piece a few bars at a time, I don't
> want a thin double bar at the end of the current engraving. I want each
> measure to look just as it will when typeset the next measure.
This is persuasive. Thanks.
—
Dan
