David Rogers <davidandrewrog...@gmail.com> writes:
> a4 a a a e'1 f4 f e d e1 \beginRepeatedSectionNestedZero a4 c b2 c4 d
> e2 \beginRepeatedSectionNestedOne4x e2 d c1
> \endRepeatedSectionNestedOne a4 a e'2 f4 e d2 c1 b a
> \endRepeatedSectionNestedZero
>
> a4 a a a e'1 f4 f e d e1 \beginRepeatedSectionNestedZero a4 c b2 c4 d
> e2 \beginRepeatedSectionNestedOne4x e2 d c1
> \endRepeatedSectionNestedOne a4 a e'2 f4 e d2 c1 b
> \1stEndingNestedZero e1 \2ndEndingNestedZero a1
> \endRepeatedSectionNestedZero e'1 e a~a \endPiece
If people were able to take this in at a glance, our input language
rather than our extension language would be Scheme.
>> % It seems like Lilypond should be able to be smart enough to
>> understand that something % like c1^"D.C. al Coda" is a written text
>> instruction without needing \markup; % likewise \mark \markup seems
>> inelegant and even redundant.
>
> In a way, I agree with you. But mainly I think this should be a
> command instead of a markup - that a D.C. should be part of the logic
> of Lilypond's repeat system and that the user should be supplying the
> musical plan rather than the string of text to print.
Are we talking about the same LilyPond?
\relative c' { \mark "X" c1^"D.C. al Coda" }
compiles quite fine for me.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
