Re: Skip between \marks will be ignored

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 01.07.2015 um 22:34 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> 2015-07-01 21:54 GMT+02:00 Simon Albrecht <address@hidden>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > If there are only skips (s) between two \mark commands, these will be
> > ignored, a warning given about simultaneous marks, and everything following
> > in this (input) music expression will not be engraved. It boils down to the
> > following:
> >
> > \version "2.19.22"
> > % same with 2.18
> >
> > %{
> >
> > The problem:
> > Warning about Two simultaneous mark events &c.
> > All the following music will be junked
> >
> > Test cases:
> >
> > Same duration       – \default given     – problem
> > Same duration       – \default not given – no problem
> > Different durations – \default given     – problem
> > Different durations – \default not given – problem
> >
> > %}
> >
> > {
> >    \mark
> >    s4
> >    \mark \default
> >    s
> > }
> >
> > I submitted Issue 4472
> > <https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4472>, but wanted to
> > ‘announce’ it here also. It’s quite confusing that it interferes with
> > \default given or not, isn’t it?
> >
> > Best regards, Simon
>
>
> The mark-function needs an argument, see:
> #(display mark)
>
> This code: { \mark s4 \mark \default s4 } puts in s4 as the argument
> for the first \mark.
> Besides it's nonsense, you then have two simultaneous marks.
>
> For this code: { \mark \default s4 \mark \default s4 } be aware that
> SkipEvents do not create a NoteColumn.
> Meaning both RehearsalMarks try to align themselves to the same item,
> as given with the 'break-align-symbols'-property.
>
> At least this is my understanding.
>
> Thus I see no bug here.
You’re right, of course.
I only wonder how I came by the notion that \mark would also work with 
the \default argument omitted – I could have sworn there was some kind 
of parser lookahead or so to provide for that case. Either this is 
outdated info or I deeply confused something. Should have modestly asked 
before racking my head on the ‘bug’ report :-)
Thanks for clarifying.

Yours, Simon