Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com: Reviewers: , Message: The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a typographical impact on the score. Brilliant idea, from my rather amatheurish point of view! Regards, Marc I nixed the patch because Xavier informed me that one could just create two separate score blocks, one for layout and one for midi. This makes it possible to feed different music to the two blocks, which solves the problem, so it's not necessary to touch the C++ code. No, no! It would be great to use one input for graphical *and* midi output by just applying a suitable make-swing-formatter, written in scheme. I think this patch would make life much easier! Writing every pairs of eights as triplets again and again is so annoying ... Regards, Marc Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com: Reviewers: , Message: The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a typographical impact on the score. Brilliant idea, from my rather amatheurish point of view! Regards, Marc I nixed the patch because Xavier informed me that one could just create two separate score blocks, one for layout and one for midi. This makes it possible to feed different music to the two blocks, which solves the problem, so it's not necessary to touch the C++ code. No, no! It would be great to use one input for graphical *and* midi output by just applying a suitable make-swing-formatter, written in scheme. I think this patch would make life much easier! Writing every pairs of eights as triplets again and again is so annoying ... Regards, Marc Cheers, MS Check out: http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for layout and midi. Then, in the two scores, just use \removeWithTag to get rid of the tagged music you don't want (i.e. get rid of layout in MIDI and vice versa). Cheers, MS___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for
modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a
typographical impact on the score.
Brilliant idea, from my rather amatheurish point of view!
Regards,
Marc
I nixed the patch because Xavier informed me that one could just
create two separate score blocks, one for layout and one for midi.
This makes it possible to feed different music to the two blocks,
which solves the problem, so it's not necessary to touch the C++
code.
No, no! It would be great to use one input for graphical *and* midi
output by just applying a suitable make-swing-formatter, written in
scheme.
Nobody keeps you from writing
\midi { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
and it has the advantage that you can use
\score { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
for a much easier check that the swing formatter is doing what you
want if the swing formatter works by altering _main_ durations. And if
the swing formatter works by altering _factors_, you will want it not as
much for proofreading, but for actual typesetting since it will then
swing the note placement.
I think this patch would make life much easier! Writing every pairs
of eights as triplets again and again is so annoying ...
Huh? Mike did not suggest that you create the swinged version manually.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com mailto:m...@apollinemike.com: On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com mailto:mts...@gmail.com: Reviewers: , Message: The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a typographical impact on the score. Brilliant idea, from my rather amatheurish point of view! Regards, Marc I nixed the patch because Xavier informed me that one could just create two separate score blocks, one for layout and one for midi. This makes it possible to feed different music to the two blocks, which solves the problem, so it's not necessary to touch the C++ code. No, no! It would be great to use one input for graphical *and* midi output by just applying a suitable make-swing-formatter, written in scheme. I think this patch would make life much easier! Writing every pairs of eights as triplets again and again is so annoying ... Regards, Marc Cheers, MS Check out: http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for layout and midi. Then, in the two scores, just use \removeWithTag to get rid of the tagged music you don't want (i.e. get rid of layout in MIDI and vice versa). I know about this, and IIRC, it doesn't work with \partial 8 or concatenated rhythms, so a more built-in solution would be better, I think. And it is not about swing alone, see: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687 Regards, Marc ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Am 31.01.2012 09:28, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for
modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without having a
typographical impact on the score.
Brilliant idea, from my rather amatheurish point of view!
Regards,
Marc
I nixed the patch because Xavier informed me that one could just
create two separate score blocks, one for layout and one for midi.
This makes it possible to feed different music to the two blocks,
which solves the problem, so it's not necessary to touch the C++
code.
No, no! It would be great to use one input for graphical *and* midi
output by just applying a suitable make-swing-formatter, written in
scheme.
Nobody keeps you from writing
\midi { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
I tried to write such stuff long ago, but I was told that it is not
possible to
get the informations about beats and measures within such a scheme function.
Mike's proposal opened a way to get exactly this information.
and it has the advantage that you can use
\score { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
for a much easier check that the swing formatter is doing what you
want if the swing formatter works by altering _main_ durations. And if
the swing formatter works by altering _factors_, you will want it not as
much for proofreading, but for actual typesetting since it will then
swing the note placement.
I think this patch would make life much easier! Writing every pairs
of eights as triplets again and again is so annoying ...
Huh? Mike did not suggest that you create the swinged version manually.
Oh, come on - if I were to write music containing just pairs of eights,
I would not have complained about the withdrawing of the patch ;-)
Furthermore, a built-in solution is better than a half-brewn python script
parsing my lilypond data (which I even did not write yet).
Regards,
Marc
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Marc Hohl wrote: I tried to write such stuff long ago, but I was told that it is not possible to get the informations about beats and measures within such a scheme function. Mike's proposal opened a way to get exactly this information. Marc, I write code much faster than I think, so I am not sure if this task is not accomplishable in Scheme. W/ respect to the link I sent you, I didn't mean to suggest that the actual code could accomplish a given goal, but rather the approach. I wrote my own set of Scheme functions based on this method that got all the swing I needed into a score. However, if you can send me a minimal example (i.e. 1-2 bars) of something that proves the Scheme solution to be deficient, then I'll re-post the patch. Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
Check out:
http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly
This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one
swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for layout and midi.
Then, in the two scores, just use \removeWithTag to get rid of the
tagged music you don't want (i.e. get rid of layout in MIDI and vice
versa).
I know about this, and IIRC, it doesn't work with \partial 8 or
concatenated rhythms, so a more built-in solution would be better, I
think.
Classical non-sequitur. The quality of the transform does not rely on
it being done in the backend. Indeed, doing it there is not the
best choice since n-tuplets should never be swinged, and you have the
situation that in
{ c''8 c'' } \\ { e'16 e' e' e' }
the second c'' does _not_ start at the same time as the third e'.
Fixing that at the performing stage is not possible since the time
relations are then already established unswinged.
Indeed, if you encounter in swing a passage written as
\times 2/2 { c''8 c'' c'' c'' }
the execution would be expected unswinged. Mathematically, \times 2/2
does not make much sense. Musically, the instruction play 2 equal
notes taking the time of 2 normally played notes becomes non-trivial in
swing.
So it makes sense to do this kind of transform on the music expressions,
and not on the resulting events.
And it is not about swing alone, see:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687
You are confusing the quality of one implementation with the qualities
of the approach as such.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Am 31.01.2012 10:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
Check out:
http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly
This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one
swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for layout and midi.
Then, in the two scores, just use \removeWithTag to get rid of the
tagged music you don't want (i.e. get rid of layout in MIDI and vice
versa).
I know about this, and IIRC, it doesn't work with \partial 8 or
concatenated rhythms, so a more built-in solution would be better, I
think.
Classical non-sequitur. The quality of the transform does not rely on
it being done in the backend. Indeed, doing it there is not the
best choice since n-tuplets should never be swinged, and you have the
situation that in
{ c''8 c'' } \\ { e'16 e' e' e' }
the second c'' does _not_ start at the same time as the third e'.
Fixing that at the performing stage is not possible since the time
relations are then already established unswinged.
Indeed, if you encounter in swing a passage written as
\times 2/2 { c''8 c'' c'' c'' }
the execution would be expected unswinged. Mathematically, \times 2/2
does not make much sense. Musically, the instruction play 2 equal
notes taking the time of 2 normally played notes becomes non-trivial in
swing.
So it makes sense to do this kind of transform on the music expressions,
and not on the resulting events.
Ok, now I understand - thanks for pointing this out.
And it is not about swing alone, see:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687
You are confusing the quality of one implementation with the qualities
of the approach as such.
Probably.
Regards,
Marc
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
\midi { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
I tried to write such stuff long ago, but I was told that it is not
possible to get the informations about beats and measures within such
a scheme function.
If it were not possible, then LilyPond could not generate this
information from the music expression either. After all, it is
everything LilyPond has to work with.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Am 31.01.2012 10:56, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com: [...] I wrote my own set of Scheme functions based on this method that got all the swing I needed into a score. Would you mind to post these functions? I am currently working on a project that needs swing articulation, so I would be glad to test your functions on this and give feedback if I encounter any deficiencies. Regards, Marc ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Creates a MIDI note length formatter (issue 5576062)
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes: Ok, now I understand - thanks for pointing this out. And it is not about swing alone, see: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687 You are confusing the quality of one implementation with the qualities of the approach as such. Probably. I have not reread that link but remember the discussion. I seem to remember that one example mentioned in there is Viennese waltz. And in contrast to swing, Viennese waltz AFAIR is indeed basically a per-measure time warp resulting in a slight accelerando at the end of each measure. It does not disturb the relations to n-tuples to the beats, and you would not want to see it affecting the spacing. So that would indeed be susceptible to do with MIDI time warps exclusively, but as long as LilyPond does not in other means try to capture expressivity, this seems somewhat pointless. With swing, however, there _is_ an exact timing implied by the notation, and one that _does_ affect note spacing, so it is more important that LilyPond offers a way to get this right to a degree where it is proof-audible. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
New Patchy thread
OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead? Also, FWIW, I've taken the email command out of config, and I now get no notification of what has resulted, except what's shown on the terminal. No Message for you in -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
hello, On 31 January 2012 11:39, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote: OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead? Not sure why 'instead', but 2263 is the only current patch-new Tracker issue. Listed. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/list?can=2q=Patch%3Dnew+sort=patchcolspec=ID+Type+Status+Stars+Owner+Patch+Needs+Summaryx=typecells=tiles -- -- James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes: OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead? Also, FWIW, I've taken the email command out of config, and I now get no notification of what has resulted, except what's shown on the terminal. No Message for you in test-patches was not supposed to be on-topic yet... As opposed to the staging patchy which does all of its branch management itself and independent of the LILYPOND_GIT directory, the testing patchy _strictly_ work on whatever happens to be git's idea of the currently checked out material in LILYPOND_GIT. So you need to make sure that you have reset test-patches to the current master. Wait. That answer does not fit the problem. I leave it in for reference, but the answer to your original question: test-patchy tests the last Rietveld review it can find on any issue being marked with Patch-new state. 2263 presumably is marked as such, 2256 apparently is something else, likely countdown or push. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:55 AM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes: OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead? Also, FWIW, I've taken the email command out of config, and I now get no notification of what has resulted, except what's shown on the terminal. No Message for you in test-patches was not supposed to be on-topic yet... As opposed to the staging patchy which does all of its branch management itself and independent of the LILYPOND_GIT directory, the testing patchy _strictly_ work on whatever happens to be git's idea of the currently checked out material in LILYPOND_GIT. So you need to make sure that you have reset test-patches to the current master. Wait. That answer does not fit the problem. I leave it in for reference, but the answer to your original question: test-patchy tests the last Rietveld review it can find on any issue being marked with Patch-new state. 2263 presumably is marked as such, 2256 apparently is something else, likely countdown or push. -- David Kastrup OK - so I really need to ensure that I can run lilypond-patchy-staging.py? I'll have a go at that next, just once I've got a piece of actual music finished... -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:03:17PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: - Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:55 AM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes: OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead? test-patches.py and lilypond-patchy-staging.py are completely different. Also, FWIW, I've taken the email command out of config, and I now get no notification of what has resulted, except what's shown on the terminal. No Message for you in take a look at the auto_compile_results_dir in your ~/.lilypond-patchy-config. Even without any mail command, you'll get the patchy log there. test-patches was not supposed to be on-topic yet... +1 although if people can get that working, that'd be great. I'll probably stop running test-patches.py myself on Feb 15. Wait. That answer does not fit the problem. I leave it in for reference, but the answer to your original question: test-patchy tests the last Rietveld review it can find on any issue being marked with Patch-new state. 2263 presumably is marked as such, 2256 apparently is something else, likely countdown or push. lilypond-patchy-staging.py does *nothing* with the code.google.com tracker. It strictly operates on git: git origin/staging and origin/master. OK - so I really need to ensure that I can run lilypond-patchy-staging.py? Yes. It should be completely automatic and painless, once you have your ~/.lilypnod-patchy-config the way you like it. - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net OK - so I really need to ensure that I can run lilypond-patchy-staging.py? Yes. It should be completely automatic and painless, once you have your ~/.lilypnod-patchy-config the way you like it. - Graham git successfully configured for push access (the CG is very good for this). Here goes. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:29 PM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread - Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net OK - so I really need to ensure that I can run lilypond-patchy-staging.py? Yes. It should be completely automatic and painless, once you have your ~/.lilypnod-patchy-config the way you like it. - Graham git successfully configured for push access (the CG is very good for this). Here goes. I get: terminal: python lilypond-patchy-staging.py Branch test-master-lock set up to track remote branch master from origin. fatal: Not a valid object name: 'origin/staging'. Message for you in /home/patchy/patchybuild/compile_results/log-2012-01-31-12.txt Deleted branch test-master-lock (was afb4c5f). logfile: Begin LilyPond compile, commit: afb4c5fb1766a317100887f62c72a660047c8892 *** FAILED STEP *** merge from staging maybe somebody pushed a commit directly to master? I assume I need to do something to update my git repo. However, it's vanilla and created using lily-git, so we would need instructions on how to do this anyway. Anyone know what's needed? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37:33PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: I assume I need to do something to update my git repo. However, it's vanilla and created using lily-git, so we would need instructions on how to do this anyway. Anyone know what's needed? I'll bet you a tenner that you used the OLD lily-git.tcl[1], which only gets a subset of the repository. [1] by OLD, I unfortunately mean the lily-git.tcl in the latest lilydev, so you're doing completely what we expect from a good and conscientious developer [2]. [2] it would be really nice if lilydev 2.0 could come out soon. Could you: 1) delete your current lilypond dir, then run: git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git 2) put the resulting lilypond in the location you want, quite possibly renaming it to lilypond-git as well 3) change that repo so you have push access 4) try again? - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Implicit nonsense
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:42 PM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37:33PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: I assume I need to do something to update my git repo. However, it's vanilla and created using lily-git, so we would need instructions on how to do this anyway. Anyone know what's needed? I'll bet you a tenner that you used the OLD lily-git.tcl[1], which only gets a subset of the repository. [1] by OLD, I unfortunately mean the lily-git.tcl in the latest lilydev, so you're doing completely what we expect from a good and conscientious developer [2]. [2] it would be really nice if lilydev 2.0 could come out soon. I did. AFAICS, the new lily-git isn't pushed as yet? Could you: 1) delete your current lilypond dir, then run: git clone git://git.sv.gnu.org/lilypond.git 2) put the resulting lilypond in the location you want, quite possibly renaming it to lilypond-git as well 3) change that repo so you have push access 4) try again? - Graham Soon. -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
lily-git.tcl and git clone
The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to use clone: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the old git remote add... stuff to only get specific branches? If I understand git correctly, which I'm sure that I don't, wouldn't this make getting other branches (notably origin/staging, but also dev/whatever as well) much harder? Is there a compelling reason not to use git clone for lily-git.tcl as well? - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: lily-git.tcl and git clone
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes: The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to use clone: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the old git remote add... stuff to only get specific branches? IIRC, that is the default of git clone. If I understand git correctly, which I'm sure that I don't, wouldn't this make getting other branches (notably origin/staging, but also dev/whatever as well) much harder? Is there a compelling reason not to use git clone for lily-git.tcl as well? I don't think it would help. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
2012/1/31 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
+1
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: lily-git.tcl and git clone
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes: The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to use clone: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the old git remote add... stuff to only get specific branches? IIRC, that is the default of git clone. I take that back: the manual page of git clone is quite explicit about cloning all branches. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net 4) try again? - Graham Soon. There you go. That seemed to work. I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily? -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: There you go. That seemed to work. Yep, looks good. I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily? Yes and no. Running it daily would be great. Running it every 12 hours might be nicer, although maybe you could alternate with James or Reinhold? Note that if there's no new patches, Patchy staging-merge just quits and tells you there's nothing to do, so don't worry about it wasting resources compiling exactly the same thing over and over again. That said, if there's a one-line typo fix in the docs, it'll still rebuild absolutely everything. Another thing to consider is setting up a cronjob. Instead of running it manually, if your computer is always on, it'll just do its thing by itself. Great for 4am in the morning! Finally, occasionally staging breaks. That'll show up in the logs in your lilypond-patch-build-output-log-directory, or if you set up the mail stuff, you'll get an email warning you about the problem. When there's a problem it requires manual attention (although not necessarily from you, and it's theoretically possible to make patchy take care of this automatically, but that's a far-off idea). - Graham ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining the
drawbacks of implicit contexts for some years now.
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works well,
eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:56 PM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: There you go. That seemed to work. Yep, looks good. I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily? Yes and no. Running it daily would be great. Running it every 12 hours might be nicer, although maybe you could alternate with James or Reinhold? I'll see how we go. It might be a breakfast and tea job. Another thing to consider is setting up a cronjob. Instead of running it manually, if your computer is always on, it'll just do its thing by itself. Great for 4am in the morning! Can't afford the electric! Might see if I can work out how to wake the computer, run patchy, and go back to sleep. Don't think I could run it at night though - my study's next door to the bedroom and the fans would probably wake us up -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
Hello, On 31 January 2012 14:05, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: - Original Message - From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:56 PM Subject: Re: New Patchy thread On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: There you go. That seemed to work. Yep, looks good. I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily? Yes and no. Running it daily would be great. Running it every 12 hours might be nicer, although maybe you could alternate with James or Reinhold? I'll see how we go. It might be a breakfast and tea job. Another thing to consider is setting up a cronjob. Instead of running it manually, if your computer is always on, it'll just do its thing by itself. Great for 4am in the morning! Can't afford the electric! Might see if I can work out how to wake the computer, run patchy, and go back to sleep. Don't think I could run it at night though - my study's next door to the bedroom and the fans would probably wake us up Well once I get some nice 1, 2, 3 instructions I can run patchy 24/7. I've had to refocus on outstanding Doc tracker issues and Patchy seems to have moved on since two weeks back. Frankly I need the heat in my study ;) -- -- James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of implicit contexts for some years now.
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Sure, but why would the above imply _two_ voices?
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message - From: James pkx1...@gmail.com Well once I get some nice 1, 2, 3 instructions I can run patchy 24/7. Will do. It's actually pretty simple. I've had to refocus on outstanding Doc tracker issues and Patchy seems to have moved on since two weeks back. Frankly I need the heat in my study ;) Check the temperature in my study here: http://www.philholmes.net/weather/ The little blip in the humidity indoors was my cup of coffee :-) -- James -- Phil Holmes ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of implicit contexts for some years now.
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with Staff
rather than StaffGroup.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with Staff
rather than StaffGroup.
usually. You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
But I agree the implementation is deficient.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with Staff
rather than StaffGroup.
usually. You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
in this example.
@c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\new Voice
\relative c'' {
\chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
\relative c''
{ a-. c\prall e1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
q2 c |
}
@end lilypond
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
in this example.
@c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\new Voice
\relative c'' {
\chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
\relative c''
{ a-. c\prall e1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
q2 c |
}
@end lilypond
It's not unusual to have explicit contexts specified in the docs.
See for example much of the vocal music section. Usually,
though, we specify \new Staff, leaving the Voice context
implied, rather than the other way round. That should work
here too, and would be more in accord with other @lilypond
snippets in the docs. Lose the comment, though.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with Staff
rather than StaffGroup.
usually. You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
why not - while composing or just copying you might include a sequence you
have written into a variable…
Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
But I agree the implementation is deficient.
what exactly is deficient?!
the right container for this is neither the StaffGroup nor a Staff, it's
simply a Voice!
and putting the whole stuff in an implicit or explicit Voice context there
is no problem at all.
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Implicit-nonsense-tp33235869p33240042.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Eluze wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:58 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If you write
\new Staff { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2~ } c } }
the tie just disappears. So I can't say this works well with Staff
rather than StaffGroup.
usually. You wouldn't usually have nested \relative's.
why not - while composing or just copying you might include a sequence
you
have written into a variable…
Implicit contexts are important for getting newbies off the ground.
But I agree the implementation is deficient.
what exactly is deficient?!
It can introduce spurious Staff contexts, as here.
the right container for this is neither the StaffGroup nor a Staff, it's
simply a Voice!
and putting the whole stuff in an implicit or explicit Voice context there
is no problem at all.
Exactly; but that wasn't the point of the discussion.
David was trying to create a snippet for the docs,
which do not (normally) specify all the contexts
explicitly.
Trevor
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
PATCH: Countdown to 20120202
For 20:00-ish MST Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
Defect:
Issue 2263
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2263: Reimplement
chord repetition (Issue 1110
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110: Wrong octave
of repetition chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax) - R 5595043
http://codereview.appspot.com/5595043/
Issue 1022
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1022: \chordmode
neglects point-and-click - R 5581049
http://codereview.appspot.com/5581049/
Cheers,
Colin
--
I've learned that you shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both
hands.
You need to be able to throw something back.
-Maya Angelou, poet (1928- )
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Implicit nonsense
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect one another,
another @code{\relative} inside of @code{\chordRepeats} can be used for
establishing the octave relations before expanding the repeat chords.
In that case, the whole content of the inner @code{\relative} does not
affect the outer one; hence the different octave entry of the final note
in this example.
@c Without \new Voice, implicit voice creation does the dumbest thing.
@lilypond[verbatim,quote]
\new Voice
\relative c'' {
\chordRepeats #'(articulation-event)
\relative c''
{ a-. c\prall e1\sfz c'4 q2 r8 q8-. } |
q2 c |
}
@end lilypond
It's not unusual to have explicit contexts specified in the docs. See
for example much of the vocal music section. Usually,
though, we specify \new Staff, leaving the Voice context
implied, rather than the other way round. That should work
here too, and would be more in accord with other @lilypond snippets in
the docs.
It would create two voices, meaning that if the user uses this construct
somewhere else, it would surprising effects, like not working with
\addlyrics or ties or whatever.
Lose the comment, though.
Why? It keeps people from removing the \new Voice from the docs.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
