Re: Written-end bar line

[Dan Eble]

> On Feb 8, 2021, at 20:29, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/8/21, 5:30 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Dan Eble" 
> <lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen+digest=gmail.com@gnu.org on behalf of 
> dan@faithful.be> wrote:
> 
>    Gould writes that "[a] thin double barline ... marks the written end of 
> the music when this is not the end of the piece" (Behind Bars, p.240).
> 
>    The statement is in the context of repeated sections: D.S. al Fine, etc.
> 
>    I'm pretty sure that this is easy to implement.  Is there any reason not 
> to make this a default?
>    — 
>    Dan
> 
> II do not want it to be a default.  I want to have control of the bar lines.

The two are not exclusive.  There is currently a default, and it doesn't 
prevent you from controlling the bar lines.

> 
> Ossia staffs do not have thin double bars, as far as I can see.

Only ossia staves that end at the written end of the music are relevant to the 
question, and I would think you would want them to have the same bar line as 
the main staves in that case.

> The end of music does not have thin double bar lines.

I'm not sure what you mean by this; Gould says it does when it's not the end of 
the piece.

> As I'm working my way through entering  piece a few bars at a time, I don't 
> want a thin double bar at the end of the current engraving.  I want each 
> measure to look just as it will when typeset the next measure.

This is persuasive.  Thanks.
— 
Dan