Le 03/07/2022 à 21:33, Simon Albrecht a écrit :
On 02/07/2022 18:20, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
Simon, you moved this from bug-lilypond to lilypond-user. Was that
intentional?
Did I? I’m sure I just clicked Reply All, and the thread as I received
is on the user list… this e-mail of yours is the
On 02/07/2022 18:20, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
Simon, you moved this from bug-lilypond to lilypond-user. Was that
intentional?
Did I? I’m sure I just clicked Reply All, and the thread as I received
is on the user list… this e-mail of yours is the first that for me shows
the bug list as recipien
> On 2 Jul 2022, at 18:35, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
>> Le 02/07/2022 à 18:14, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>>
>>> 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
What I would need is a "This has changed" summary for new releases.
Such as this?
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/changes/index.html
:-)
Exactly that :)
Thanks for pointing me to it.
Kind regards,
Michael
--
Michael Gerdau email: m...@qata.de
GPG-keys available on requ
Le 02/07/2022 à 19:54, Michael Gerdau a écrit :
What I would need is a "This has changed" summary for new releases.
Such as this?
https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.23/Documentation/changes/index.html
:-)
I. Question for the original poster: There is a comment about ambiguity of nested repeats
under the "Known issues and warnings" heading in the NR[1]. Were you
sufficiently aware of that such that if it had had been more verbose, you might have been
able to solve your problem?
I wasn't aware
Le 02/07/2022 à 18:35, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Jean Abou Samra
wrote:
Le 02/07/2022 à 18:14, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> 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 normall
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 10:23 AM Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> Le 02/07/2022 à 18:14, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>
> > 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.
I don't r
Le 02/07/2022 à 18:14, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:55 AM Jean Abou Samra 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
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 i
On Jul 2, 2022, at 10:55, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> 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-fo
On Sat, Jul 2, 2022 at 8:55 AM Jean Abou Samra 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
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 i
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 i
Thanks for the explanation.
Apparently I misread the documentation.
[detailed explanation snipped]
I had a memory that the syntax had changed but couldn't find it upon a
quick look since all the examples at the beginning of the notation
reference still use the old syntax :)
You can likely
Hello Michael,
you’re not exactly wrong there. In recent versions is has become possible to
put the \alternative inside the reapeat block, which allows having
alternatives in other parts than the end, and after all one might say that
this is in fact a more sane way to do it. But for Lilypond st
Michael Gerdau writes:
>> this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
>> part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
>> have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
>> unfold (as it is placed after that o
this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the first repeat you g
Hello Michael,
this is not a bug. You’re supposed to put the alternative after the repeat
part not inside, so \repeat volta 2 { ... } \alternative { ... }. The way you
have put it the \alternative ... is used as alternatives for the \repeat
unfold (as it is placed after that one), so after the
Hi list!
the attached Lilypond code IMO shows a bug.
Or have I misunderstood the way it is supposed to work?
\version "2.23.10"
music = \relative g' {
\time 6/8
\partial 8
r8 |
\repeat volta 2 {
g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8 r8 d8 r8 r8 | g8 r8
r8 d8 r8 r8 |
g8
20 matches
Mail list logo
