Re: [Feature Request] \compressFullBarRests improvement(s)

[Alex Loomis]

I agree entirely with James that the input looks good as is. Only tangentially related, does the placement of the first mark bother anyone else? I feel like it would look better after rather than over the clef.

On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:42 PM, James Harkins <address@hidden> wrote:

James Harkins <jamshark70 <at> gmail.com> writes:

> FWIW, I agree with Kieren. If I saw a part with some multimeasure rests
> broken for no obvious reason, e.g.
>
> { \compressFullBarRests \mark \default R1*2 R1*2 \mark \default R1*2 }
>
> I would think the publisher was insane or incompetent. I'm surprised this is
> LP's default behavior.

Hm, no, that example looks OK because of the older-style rest format.

*This* looks nuts to me, and I don't recall every seeing anything like this
in any part that I played from in wind bands in high school and college...
why not just |--- 4 ---|?

{ \compressFullBarRests \override MultiMeasureRest #'expand-limit = #1 \mark

\default R1*2 R1*2 \mark \default R1*2 }

hjh


_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user