On Jun 13, 2021, at 14:16, Dan Eble wrote:
>
> If pD:d constructed the same music as \repeat tremolo d-per-D { pd }, that
> would have worked.
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6145
—
Dan
On Jun 13, 2021, at 12:36, David Kastrup wrote:
> (by
> the way: it is patently ridiculous that it requires \articulate for
> getting tomh1:32 rendered as more than one note).
Yes, especially because the Notation Reference comes quite close to saying that
the :N notation is equivalent to \repeat
David Kastrup writes:
> Dan Eble writes:
>
>> On Jun 12, 2021, at 18:48, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> So how robust (or not) would be the following approach? Make it
>>> possible to write in the timing track something like
>>>
>>> \rit 2/3 { \skip 1*2 }
>>>
>>> with the effect that some run
Dan Eble writes:
> On Jun 12, 2021, at 18:48, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> So how robust (or not) would be the following approach? Make it
>> possible to write in the timing track something like
>>
>> \rit 2/3 { \skip 1*2 }
>>
>> with the effect that some run-always translator keeps adjusting
