Re: [Spam??] repeated time signatures

[David Nalesnik]

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Urs Liska <address@hidden>wrote:

> Am 29.04.2013 17:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>
>  Urs Liska wrote Monday, April 29, 2013 3:50 PM
>>
>>
>>  Am 29.04.2013 16:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>>>
>>>  Urs Liska wrote  Monday, April 29, 2013 3:02 PM
>>>>
>>>>  The NR (1.2.3 "Displaying Rhythms") states that time signatures "are
>>>>> printed at the beginning of a piece and whenever the time signature
>>>>> changes."
>>>>>
>>>>> But if I write
>>>>>
>>>>> music = {
>>>>>     \time 3/4
>>>>>     R2.*4
>>>>>     \time 3/4
>>>>>     R2.
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> the time signature is printed a second time although it doesn't change
>>>>> (to my understanding)
>>>>>
>>>> Rather surprisingly there is no bug report describing this, although it
>>>> has been present since the beaming behaviour was changed several
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>>  a) Is this intended behaviour? And if yes, shouldn't it be documented
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think it is intended, so it should be recorded as a bug.
>>>> Copying to bug list for bug squad.
>>>>
>>> I think, David Nalesnik's comment is valid.
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/**html/lilypond-user/2013-04/**
>>> msg00852.html<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-04/msg00852.html>
>>>
>>> So I think the behaviour shouldn't be changed, but the documentation.
>>>
>> I read the opposite in David's comment.  The documentation correctly
>> says what should happen, and what used to happen prior to around 2010,
>> but since then the code has behaved incorrectly IMHO.  So the
>> bug report should record the incorrect behaviour of the code.  As we don't
>> usually document buggy behaviour, the docs should not be changed,
>> unless, maybe, to remove the statement either way.
>>
>> Trevor
>>
>>
> Hm, maybe I've done too much today to see it ;-)
> Rereading David's comment after yours, I don't see anymore what he
> intended to say.
>

Sorry if I was unclear!  I simply meant that if the user types in a extra
\time LilyPond should by default only print the time signature once.
That's the correct practice, after all.  If the user really wants that
extra time signature, he/she should have to specify this in some way,
perhaps by setting some property like "showAllTimeSignatures" (which would
be set by default to #f).


> But if you're right and a repeated \time signature shouldn't be displayed
> by default, would it be then the right way to include David's engraver by
> default? And do the same for key signatures and clefs?
>
> Or should a fix be tackled at a lower level?
>

The engraver could be used as a workaround, but a fix at a lower level
would definitely be better.


-David



On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Urs Liska <address@hidden>wrote:

> Am 29.04.2013 17:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>
>  Urs Liska wrote Monday, April 29, 2013 3:50 PM
>>
>>
>>  Am 29.04.2013 16:46, schrieb Trevor Daniels:
>>>
>>>  Urs Liska wrote  Monday, April 29, 2013 3:02 PM
>>>>
>>>>  The NR (1.2.3 "Displaying Rhythms") states that time signatures "are
>>>>> printed at the beginning of a piece and whenever the time signature
>>>>> changes."
>>>>>
>>>>> But if I write
>>>>>
>>>>> music = {
>>>>>     \time 3/4
>>>>>     R2.*4
>>>>>     \time 3/4
>>>>>     R2.
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> the time signature is printed a second time although it doesn't change
>>>>> (to my understanding)
>>>>>
>>>> Rather surprisingly there is no bug report describing this, although it
>>>> has been present since the beaming behaviour was changed several
>>>> years ago.
>>>>
>>>>  a) Is this intended behaviour? And if yes, shouldn't it be documented
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think it is intended, so it should be recorded as a bug.
>>>> Copying to bug list for bug squad.
>>>>
>>> I think, David Nalesnik's comment is valid.
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/**html/lilypond-user/2013-04/**
>>> msg00852.html<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2013-04/msg00852.html>
>>>
>>> So I think the behaviour shouldn't be changed, but the documentation.
>>>
>> I read the opposite in David's comment.  The documentation correctly
>> says what should happen, and what used to happen prior to around 2010,
>> but since then the code has behaved incorrectly IMHO.  So the
>> bug report should record the incorrect behaviour of the code.  As we don't
>> usually document buggy behaviour, the docs should not be changed,
>> unless, maybe, to remove the statement either way.
>>
>> Trevor
>>
>>
> Hm, maybe I've done too much today to see it ;-)
> Rereading David's comment after yours, I don't see anymore what he
> intended to say.
>
> But if you're right and a repeated \time signature shouldn't be displayed
> by default, would it be then the right way to include David's engraver by
> default? And do the same for key signatures and clefs?
>
> Or should a fix be tackled at a lower level?
>
> Urs
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> bug-lilypond mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/bug-lilypond<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond>
>