Re: Bar lines

[David Kastrup]

Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:

> I am a bit disappointed that the discussion about \bar ":|."
> rises half a year after the patch went through the revision
> process.

If you think this is the first time, you have missed a few times.  The
revision process does not incorporate user feedback that we have seen in
between, and it is usually rather sloppy.  If I would complain every
time a feature of mine did not get any review at all during the regular
review phase, people would be even more annoyed at me than they already
are.

> The basic idea behind the bar line interface based on Harm's
> work, and I like the idea of having a 1:1 representation of the
> bar line stringwise.

For specifying the visual composition of a particular bar type: full
agreement.  That makes excellent sense.  What does not make sense is to
require the user to specify the visual composition of a bar every time
he wants to use it.  That's WYSIWYG without style sheets.

> But if anyone wants to implement aliases, go ahead.

I was of the impression that this was undesired.

> I'd rather see lilyponds input structure being optimized. The \repeat
> construct doesnt allow for d'al segno, da capo and stuff like that.

> As I mentioned elsewhere, I seldom use the repeat sign explicitely, I
> try to get along with \repeat volta. Moreover, I find it very annoying
> to end every piece with an explicit \bar "|." I'd like to see that
> lilypond ends a piece with "|." by default – in the rare cases where I
> need a different ending bar line, I would code \bar "|" or \bar "||"
> or whatever.

I am not sure this would not be even more annoying when doing music
theory texts with lilypond-book.

> If lily would offer a better way to _structurize_ music, this
> discussion would be rather academic.

We'd still need a way to configure the visual appearance.

-- 
David Kastrup