Re: Repeat question

[David Wright]

[I haven't reattached the images.]

On Tue 26 Jun 2018 at 18:22:00 (+0200), Jacques Menu Muzhic wrote:
> Hello David & Torsten,
> 
> The snippet file in my OP is actually a shortened version of a file contained 
> in the LilyPond Unofficial Test Suite.

Which version?

> 
> Adding the missing 
> 
>        <repeat direction="backward »/>
> 
> to measure 10 and a final measure 13, I obtain the attached file.

I don't see where the "8" came from.

> MuseScore 2.1.0 ignores <duration>, hence the quarter notes, but is otherwise 
> OK:

Could you give us the sequence of notes that this score represents.
I get as far as:

c' d' (1st ending)
c' e' f' g' (2nd ending, then a :| missing)
c' a' b' c'' d'' e'' (3rd ending's 1st ending)
c' a' b' c'' d'' (3rd ending's… ) f'' (2nd ending? "5"?)
c' (whither now?)

> Finale 2014 is OK, and I discovered on this occasion that the alternative 
> lines with 2 hooks, one a each end, are in fact two superposed lines, each 
> one with a hook at one end. Moving them apart give:

Should we have more colours? Which hook closes which volta?

> musicxml2ly does not do a good job in that case on alternatives 2 et 3:

What defines a good job? I assume I could replicate the MuseScore 2.1.0
with LP by using a few Score.repeatCommands (though I don't feel I'll
learn anything in the attempt) but in order to get useful LP code, one
has to decide what the score's semantics are. For me, duplicating the
notational syntax is a waste of time.

> Interesting!

Knowing little about XML, let alone MusicXML, I don't know how much of
the semantics of repeats can be expressed and enforced.

> Le 26 juin 2018 à 15:41, David Wright <address@hidden> a écrit :

[one spurious quote marker removed]

> > On Mon 25 Jun 2018 at 12:34:13 (-0700), Torsten Hämmerle wrote:
> >> Ok, when looking at the XML data, I'll have to admit that Finale, Musescore
> >> and Sibelius (just tested it) are closer to the XML reality, whereas
> >> LilyPond fills in missing parts.
> > 
> > I'd agree, and would say that the XML is simply malformed, so the
> > musicxml2ly program is trying to correct it. AFAICT the output is
> > consistent with prioritising the earliest elements encountered in
> > the source, ie the volta brackets.
> > 
> >> Import into Sibelius:
> >> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t3887/sibelius-xml-repeat.png> 
> >> 
> >> But I think there's a 
> >>        <repeat direction="backward"/>
> >> missing in the XML file at the end of measure 2 (within <barline…>)
> >> 
> >> If you insert this, the missing repeat barline between the volta brackets
> >> will even show up in Finale/Sibelius/MuseScore. ;)

I didn't understand that then, and I don't now. Your .xml file posted
here seemed to have a whole ending (numbered 8) added to it.

> > But if you insert a :| at the end of bar 2, then the bar sequence
> > played becomes 1 2 1 3 1 4, so bar 4 still needs an open-ended
> > volta |¯¯ marked with 3 for third time (open-ended, assuming that
> > the single bar 4 is a placeholder for a passage of music).

Cheers,
David.