musicxml2ly: Emit bar checks for all voices

musicxml2ly: Emit bar checks for all voices

The script only added them for the first voice, without explanation.
As this change doesn't seem to cause any problems, it's probably fine
to lift this restriction and make the generated code easier to read.

Suggested privately by Kai Ruemmler.

[Dan Eble, 2020-03-10 00:20:12]

https://codereview.appspot.com/553620043/diff/581760043/scripts/musicxml2ly.py
File scripts/musicxml2ly.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/553620043/diff/581760043/scripts/musicxml2ly.p...
scripts/musicxml2ly.py:2287: if n._measure_position == Rational(0) and n !=
voice._elements[0]:
Is the purpose of n != voice._elements[0] to avoid printing a bar check at the
beginning of the first measure?  If so, I would have been less puzzled if the
comment were "print a bar check at the beginning of every measure after the
first" or simply "print bar checks between measures".

LGTM.

[hahnjo, 2020-03-10 09:18:11]

https://codereview.appspot.com/553620043/diff/581760043/scripts/musicxml2ly.py
File scripts/musicxml2ly.py (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/553620043/diff/581760043/scripts/musicxml2ly.p...
scripts/musicxml2ly.py:2287: if n._measure_position == Rational(0) and n !=
voice._elements[0]:
On 2020/03/10 00:20:12, Dan Eble wrote:
> Is the purpose of n != voice._elements[0] to avoid printing a bar check at the
> beginning of the first measure?  If so, I would have been less puzzled if the
> comment were "print a bar check at the beginning of every measure after the
> first" or simply "print bar checks between measures".

I really have no idea. This condition was the way to fix the problem at hand,
but I'm not really into what the script is doing in detail. I tend to agree with
your analysis though. I'm going with "print bar checks between measures", thanks
for the suggestion.

[hahnjo, 2020-03-10 09:19:39]

update comment as suggested by Dan