Re: tuplet number placement and ornament
On 01/05/12 14:32, Werner LEMBERG wrote: In the following, even though I've turned off the tuplet bracket stencil, the tuplet number is still placed as though the stencil was there: [...] I want the number there, but not have it displaced upwards as if the bracket was still there and avoiding the mordent. I found subsequent to my previous message that I can achieve this by using \override TupletBracket #'avoid-scripts = ##f. This should be documented (in case it isn't yet). Other than the avoid-scripts property appearing in the Internals ref, "TupletBracket #'avoid-scripts" doesn't appear to be documented. There is a bug for tuplet number placement - https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2397. It's marked as fixed, but it seems to me that there is still a bug there if collision avoidance for a TupletBracket is still being performed when the TupletBracket stencil has been turned off. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: tuplet number placement and ornament
>>> In the following, even though I've turned off the tuplet bracket >>> stencil, the tuplet number is still placed as though the stencil >>> was there: > > [...] I want the number there, but not have it displaced upwards as > if the bracket was still there and avoiding the mordent. I found > subsequent to my previous message that I can achieve this by using > \override TupletBracket #'avoid-scripts = ##f. This should be documented (in case it isn't yet). Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
After I send out the email, I search LSR and found the solution. Thank you
very much for your help.
Blessing in+,
Ming.
>
> From: MING TSANG
>To: Gilles ; David Nalesnik
>
>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 4:00:43 PM
>Subject: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
>
>
>Thank you Gilles and David: One more thing - how to put a box or circle to
>the bar number that are now multiple of 5's?
>
>
>Blessing in+,
>
>
>>
>> From: Gilles
>>To: David Nalesnik ; MING TSANG
>>
>>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:21:21 PM
>>Subject: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
>>
>>> Can I just print the multiple of fifth's (or 10's) only - the in between
>>> nar number should be blank?
>>
>>
>>%%
>>\version "2.15.37"
>>%%% solution 1
>>\relative c'' {
>> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
>> \override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
>> #(lambda (grob)
>> (let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
>> (text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
>> (nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
>>
(if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
>> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
>> (ly:grob-suicide! grob))
>> stil))
>>
>> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>>}
>>%%% solution 2 % easier
>>\relative c'' {
>> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
>> \set Score.barNumberVisibility = #(every-nth-bar-number-visible 5)
>> \override Score.BarNumber #'color = #red
>>
>> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>>}
>>
>>
>>Gilles
>>
>>
>>
>
>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Thank you Gilles and David: One more thing - how to put a box or circle to the
bar number that are now multiple of 5's?
Blessing in+,
>
> From: Gilles
>To: David Nalesnik ; MING TSANG
>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 3:21:21 PM
>Subject: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
>
>> Can I just print the multiple of fifth's (or 10's) only - the in between nar
>> number should be blank?
>
>
>%%
>\version "2.15.37"
>%%% solution 1
>\relative c'' {
> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
> \override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
> #(lambda (grob)
> (let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
> (text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
> (nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
> (if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
> (ly:grob-suicide! grob))
> stil))
>
> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>}
>%%% solution 2 % easier
>\relative c'' {
> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
> \set Score.barNumberVisibility = #(every-nth-bar-number-visible 5)
> \override Score.BarNumber #'color = #red
>
> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>}
>
>
>Gilles
>
>
>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Can I just print the multiple of fifth's (or 10's) only - the in between
nar number should be blank?
%%
\version "2.15.37"
%%% solution 1
\relative c'' {
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
\override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
#(lambda (grob)
(let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
(text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
(nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
(if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
(ly:grob-suicide! grob))
stil))
\repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
}
%%% solution 2 % easier
\relative c'' {
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
\set Score.barNumberVisibility = #(every-nth-bar-number-visible 5)
\override Score.BarNumber #'color = #red
\repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
}
Gilles
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Hi Ming,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM, MING TSANG wrote:
> Hi, David, I asked the wrong question. The right one: Can I just print
> the multiple of fifth's (or 10's) only - the in between nar number should
> be blank?
>
>
OK, I now see what you want. For that you can do something like this:
\version "2.15.37"
\relative c' {
\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #end-of-line-invisible
\set Score.barNumberVisibility = #(every-nth-bar-number-visible 5)
\repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
}
You can read more about this here:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/bars#bar-numbers
See "Printing bar numbers at regular intervals."
HTH,
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Hi, David, I asked the wrong question. The right one: Can I just print the
multiple of fifth's (or 10's) only - the in between nar number should be blank?
Blessing in+,
Ming.
>
> From: David Nalesnik
>To: MING TSANG
>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 10:59:29 AM
>Subject: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
>
>
>Hi Ming,
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM, MING TSANG wrote:
>
>Thank you, David. Is it possible not to print other numbers other than the
>multiple of five's?
>>
>
>
>To to this, you only need to change one line of Harm's function (see below):
>
>
>>>
>>> \relative c'' {
>>>
>>>
>>> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
>>> \override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
>>> #(lambda (grob)
>>> (let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
>>> (text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
>>> (nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
> ;; if you change 5 to 3 in the line below, you'll get a bar line
>every three bars; if you change it to 10, every ten
> ;; bars; etc.
>
> (if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
>>> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
>>> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color black))
>>> stil))
>>>
>>>
>>> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>>>}
>Hope this helps!
>David
>
>
>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: tuplet number placement and ornament
On 30/04/12 16:47, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Nick Payne"
To:
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 7:39 AM
Subject: tuplet number placement and ornament
In the following, even though I've turned off the tuplet bracket
stencil, the tuplet number is still placed as though the stencil was
there:
\version "2.15.37"
\relative c'' {
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\override TupletBracket #'stencil = ##f
\times 2/3 { g8 fis g g\mordent fis g }
}
If you want to get rid of the number, use TupletNumber (appropriately).
No, what I meant was that I want the number there, but not have it
displaced upwards as if the bracket was still there and avoiding the
mordent. I found subsequent to my previous message that I can achieve
this by using \override TupletBracket #'avoid-scripts = ##f.
Nick
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Notation of french horn
> Vaughn Williams's Sea Symphony (finished in 1909) gives the horns no key > signature. In his second symphony (finished in 1914), he gives no key signature to the horns or trumpets (both in F), but does give a key signature to the cornets. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Notation of french horn
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:50, Tim Reeves wrote: > Holst First Suite for Military Band (in E flat) (1909) - written for four > horns in E flat - those were common in early twentieth century bands - horn > parts have no sharps or flats in key signature - nowadays the player would > get a part that said Horn in E flat and she would transpose down a whole > step as she plays, or a part for horn in F (written out a whole step lower) > would be provided and this would have two flats and not require thought by > the player about transposing. > > Holst's Jupiter from The Planets (c. 1916) C major, but six horns in F still > with no key signature (should be one sharp). As a comparison, the clarinet > parts have two sharps, and the English horn part has one sharp. This outlines yet another complication, and that is the difference between the band and orchestral traditions. The brass instruments of the brass band are to the orchestral brass instruments as the saxophones are to orchestral woodwinds: they were designed to have a consistent sound and playing technique for all instruments in their family, so in the case of the brass, they were all given piston valves and it seems that most of them were given a cylindrical bore (like the trumpet and trombone, but different than the horn and tuba). Those instruments did not draw upon the traditions of the orchestral brass, and observed modern conventions for transposition (pick one (e-flat) or two (...and f?) no more!) and key signatures (use them!), and even in the modern wind ensemble tradition, it seems that brass parts owe such conventions to this rather than to the orchestral tradition. In the orchestral literature, Ravel and Shostakovich eschewed key signatures for the horns, even when they used them for other instruments. Vaughn Williams's Sea Symphony (finished in 1909) gives the horns no key signature. It is not necessary to continue this tradition, but if you are writing for an orchestral horn player, you might want to check in with them. Fortunately, you can just comment a line of code if you don't want a key signature. (Or use \tag...) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Err.. ;; if you change 5 to 3 in the line below, you'll get a bar line > every three bars; if you change it to 10, every ten > ;; bars; etc. > > That's "bar number" of course! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Hi Ming,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:23 AM, MING TSANG wrote:
> Thank you, David. Is it possible not to print other numbers other than
> the multiple of five's?
>
To to this, you only need to change one line of Harm's function (see below):
>
> \relative c'' {
>
>\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
>\override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
> #(lambda (grob)
>(let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
> (text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
> (nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
>
> ;; if you change 5 to 3 in the line below, you'll get a bar line
every three bars; if you change it to 10, every ten
;; bars; etc.
>(if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color black))
>stil))
>
>\repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
> }
>
> Hope this helps!
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Notation of french horn
Jonas Olson wrote on 04/27/2012 02:06:07 PM: > From: Jonas Olson > To: Tim Reeves > Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Date: 04/27/2012 02:06 PM > Subject: Re: Notation of french horn > > Interesting to see the variations that occur. > > fre 2012-04-27 klockan 11:50 -0700 skrev Tim Reeves: > > Mozart horn concerto in D major (1791) - originally played on a > > natural horn with a D crook, so written with no key signature - the > > modern player playing on an F horn simply (!) transposes the part down > > a minor third as he plays it. Exception is to transpose the part for > > him, so write it out for horn in F. Then the key signature is two > > sharps (for the horn - one sharp for everyone else!) > > This is beside the main point, but just so I don't misunderstand > something. Music in D major would have tree sharps for an instrument in > F and two sharps for non-transposing instruments, wouldn't it? > > Jonas > Yes. I changed that example and didn't correctly change the key signature description. Thanks for catching it. Tim___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Notation of french horn
> > Message: 5 > Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:07:42 +0200 > From: Jonas Olson > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Notation of french horn > Message-ID: <1335514062.13951.43.camel@appendix> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Even though I do understand the nature of the valveless horn, I do not > see why one omits the key signature today. Just tradition doesn't really > explain it. Could someone clarify this? Here's how I understand it so > far: > > On the valveless horn you change crooks to give the instrument a > transposition that matches the music. That way, the music is always > notated in C major (assuming major mode), just like how music sounding > in B? major, played on a B? clarinet, is written as C major. Rather than > calling this "no key signature", I'd say we have the key signature of C > major. > > When we switch over to valves, we no longer match the transposition of > the instrument to the key of the music, so it's only natural for other > key signatures to appear. To continue the tradition of valveless horns, > one would rather have to consider every valve press to be a change of > crooks that alters the transposition of the instrument, and then write > for this transposition until it's time for the next valve press. > > In summary, having no key signature (rather, the key signature of C > major) appears natural to me when dealing with valveless horns (whose > transposition match the key of the music) but not when it comes to horns > with valves. I'm looking forward to getting this explained to me! > > Regards, > Jonas > Basically, I'd say the "norm" is to write out/typeset the horn part the way the composer originally wrote it, the exception being when the player is not [expected to be] skilled in transposition. Transposition on-the-fly is typically expected of today's horn players due to the history of the instrument and historical practice. I'll give some examples to try to illustrate the possibilities. Mozart horn concerto in D major (1791) - originally played on a natural horn with a D crook, so written with no key signature - the modern player playing on an F horn simply (!) transposes the part down a minor third as he plays it. Exception is to transpose the part for him, so write it out for horn in F. Then the key signature is two sharps (for the horn - one sharp for everyone else!) Tchaikovsky piano concerto in B flat minor (1875) - horn part originally written for valved horn, but *still* written with no key signature and accidentals instead of four flats key signature. (Nineteenth century composers were slow to change the practice of writing as if they were writing for natural horn, maybe with pressure from horn players who were unused to seeing a key signature in all their Beethoven symphonies etc.) Holst First Suite for Military Band (in E flat) (1909) - written for four horns in E flat - those were common in early twentieth century bands - horn parts have no sharps or flats in key signature - nowadays the player would get a part that said Horn in E flat and she would transpose down a whole step as she plays, or a part for horn in F (written out a whole step lower) would be provided and this would have two flats and not require thought by the player about transposing. Holst's Jupiter from The Planets (c. 1916) C major, but six horns in F still with no key signature (should be one sharp). As a comparison, the clarinet parts have two sharps, and the English horn part has one sharp. Gliere - Concerto for Horn in B flat major (1951) - horn in F, one flat in the key signature and this piece has lots of accidentals (mostly sharps and even double sharps!) Bach Suites for Unaccompanied Cello *transcribed* for horn in F - each piece has a key signature, either one more sharp or one fewer flats than the original, as needed. I'd say almost everything written after the early-mid twentieth century is going to have key signatures, but as much of what we play was written earlier, it is very common for horn players to have parts without key signatures in front of them. Hope this helps. Tim Reeves ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Pondings
Hey LilyPond users, On the LilyPond website's upper righthand corner, we'll be starting in a few days a "Pondings" column. This column will house a rotating cast of tweet-sized messages about LilyPond-related projects. Anyone can submit a Ponding, and I encourage you to do so! Three ground rules: 1) Keep it pertinent. A ponding needs to be something that makes LilyPond look good - a concert featuring LilyPond typeset works, pedagogy about LilyPond, published articles/theses, conference about LilyPond, blog about LilyPond, a website that uses LilyPond somehow, etc.. 2) Keep it profanity-free. 3) Keep it informational. No calls to action (i.e. come see concert X, donate to tour Y) aside from "click here to read more" or "check it out". This does not mean that a linked site cannot have donation buttons, ticket sales, or be housed on a ticket/donation site (i.e. Ticketmaster, Kickstarter). But the content of the tweet and linked material should provide information and generally create a positive vibe around LilyPond. I'm in charge of maintaining this corner, so send me your Pondings (anything in valid HTML is fine - make sure its tweet-sized) and I'll put them up on the site! Cheers, MS ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 17:26:29 +0200 David Kastrup wrote: > Well, we've expected the next stable for months now. If the > expectation does not turn out true, it might make sense to get a > _timely_ report about just was the problem with 2.14. I am not > particularly fond of the message that putting out another 2.14 > version sends, but it is conceivable that a backport of code that has > become problematic would get to the finishing line earlier than 2.16 > does. Please don't release 2.14.3 just to placate Fedora. In my opinion, it should be released if there are important fixes since 2.14.2, in particular, fixes that would help Mutopia, LSR and other projects that run the latest stable release. Or maybe for security reasons - CPU frying mordents and stuff like that :) > Whether or not we (TM) decide to invest any amount of work into such a > backport, some feedback from downstream might help in pinpointing and > documenting the source of current problems, and thus create a bit more > of a time buffer for a qualified decision. Patching sources to make them compile on a distro is a job of a distro. We can help if they ask nicely. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \tempo sticks out to the right
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:38:48 +0200 (CEST) Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> Attached is its output. How can I avoid that the \tempo string > >> sticks out to the right? > > > > I think this is > > > > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1133 > > Mhmm, not really, I think. As can be seen in my example, lilypond > increases the spacing in the bar, but the \tempo still sticks out to > the right. > > It's certainly connected, but maybe two problems overlap. I think sticking out to the right is a separate problem and deserves a separate issue unless there is one. This makes the "sticking out" worse: \override Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn #'keep-inside-line = ##f That's a sign that keep-inside-line tries to do its job but fails to do it correctly. I can reproduce the problem with \tempo, but not with \markup \bold or with \mark \markup \bold. There is something special about \tempo. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
Thank you, David. Is it possible not to print other numbers other than the
multiple of five's?
Blessing in+,
Ming.
>
> From: David Nalesnik
>To: MING TSANG
>Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
>Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2012 6:53:38 PM
>Subject: Re: lilypond-user Digest, Vol 113, Issue 99
>
>
>Hi,
>
>
>On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 8:37 PM, MING TSANG wrote:
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>\version "2.15.37"
>>\relative c'' {
>>\override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
>>\override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
>>#(lambda (grob)
>>(let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
>>(text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
>>((markup->string text) (string->number text)))
>>(if (= (remainder (markup->string text) 5) 0)
>>(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
>>(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color black))
>>stil))
>>\repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>>}
>>
>>
>>I try replacing nmbr with (markup->string text) as suggest by David Nalesnik
>>and I get the following error. Appreciate help.
>
>
>This is how to do it:
>
>
> \relative c'' {
>
>
> \override Score.BarNumber #'break-visibility = #'#(#f #t #t)
> \override Score.BarNumber #'stencil =
> #(lambda (grob)
> (let* ((stil (ly:text-interface::print grob))
> (text (ly:grob-property grob 'text))
> (nmbr (string->number (markup->string text
> (if (= (remainder nmbr 5) 0)
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color red)
> (ly:grob-set-property! grob 'color black))
> stil))
>
>
> \repeat unfold 41 { c1 }
>}
>
>
>Best,
>David
>
>___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \tempo sticks out to the right
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 10:04:19 +0200 (CEST)
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > This is the only workaround that comes to my mind, but probably it's
> > not what you are looking for:
> >
> > \tempo \markup {
> > \center-column {
> > \line { a very long }
> > \line { tempo string }
> > }
> > }
>
> Indeed, this is a viable solution sometimes, e.g. in parts. Ideally,
> \tempo should accept an optional argument to provide an alternative
> markup for extremely tight situations.
Perhaps \markup could support alternate versions for tight situations.
There are more cases than just \tempo that may need it.
--
Regards,
Pavel Roskin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
Martin Tarenskeen writes: > On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Kastrup wrote: >> > 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in > Fedora 17' Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently. >> >>> That sounds like imprudent policy. Packaging an unstable version should >>> only be done by somebody committed to tracking upstream developments >>> well enough to quickly replace the version. >> >> I agree. I just reported the issue on Bugzilla. >> > > And they replied: > > --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-30 > 10:35:38 EDT --- Normally I'd agree, but in this case I moved to the > unstable branch because at the time the stable branch no longer built > on rawhide. As it is, we expect the next stable to come out prior to > F17 GA, so I'll either get it in as an update or it will be in F17. > We've done this in the past with things like Firefox. Well, we've expected the next stable for months now. If the expectation does not turn out true, it might make sense to get a _timely_ report about just was the problem with 2.14. I am not particularly fond of the message that putting out another 2.14 version sends, but it is conceivable that a backport of code that has become problematic would get to the finishing line earlier than 2.16 does. Whether or not we (TM) decide to invest any amount of work into such a backport, some feedback from downstream might help in pinpointing and documenting the source of current problems, and thus create a bit more of a time buffer for a qualified decision. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Kastrup wrote: 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17' Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently. That sounds like imprudent policy. Packaging an unstable version should only be done by somebody committed to tracking upstream developments well enough to quickly replace the version. I agree. I just reported the issue on Bugzilla. And they replied: --- Comment #1 from Jon Ciesla 2012-04-30 10:35:38 EDT --- Normally I'd agree, but in this case I moved to the unstable branch because at the time the stable branch no longer built on rawhide. As it is, we expect the next stable to come out prior to F17 GA, so I'll either get it in as an update or it will be in F17. We've done this in the past with things like Firefox. -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, David Kastrup wrote: 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17' Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently. That sounds like imprudent policy. Packaging an unstable version should only be done by somebody committed to tracking upstream developments well enough to quickly replace the version. I agree. I just reported the issue on Bugzilla. -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
Pavel Roskin writes: > Quoting James : > >> 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in >> Fedora 17' > > Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently. In my understanding, > it means that the maintainer believes that a new stable version of > Lilypond will be released before or shortly after Fedora 17. I'm sure > Lilypond 2.16 would be packaged quickly once it's released because, > the maintainer is betting that it will be. > > I tried the version packaged in Fedora 17 on one of the scores and > found it utterly broken (bogus barchecks everywhere), so I upgraded to > the git version of Lilypond. That sounds like imprudent policy. Packaging an unstable version should only be done by somebody committed to tracking upstream developments well enough to quickly replace the version. 2.15.29 is commit 82e1937780c911be71b439a7d1f2006f058f0490 Author: Graham Percival Date: Thu Feb 9 13:57:59 2012 + Release: update news. This is quite more than 2 months old. Any process that cranks out such an old development version today is not suited for the updating problems in relation to development versions. > But I would gladly use 2.16 at least on some systems once it's > available in Fedora. Who wouldn't? -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: tuplet number placement and ornament
Hi again,
> Since the number is positioned according to where the bracket would be,
> you could override 'positions of TupletBracket:
>
> \relative c'' {
>\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>\times 2/3 {
> g8 fis g
> \override TupletBracket #'positions = #'(3.34 . 3.34)
> g\mordent fis g
>}
> }
>
>
If you want something more automatic, you could try the solution below.
Basically, I'm setting the 'positions of TupletBracket to that of Beam and
adding in an offset for correct positioning. It will work with downstems,
too, but there will be a collision if you put the mordent on the middle
note. (Of course the override is unnecessary in that case...)
There's probably a radically simpler solution here, but for what it's
worth...
\version "2.15.37"
#(define proc
(lambda (grob)
(let* ((first-note
(car (ly:grob-array->list (ly:grob-object grob
'note-columns
(note-heads
(ly:grob-array->list (ly:grob-object first-note 'note-heads)))
(stem (ly:grob-object (car note-heads) 'stem))
(beam (ly:grob-object stem 'beam))
(beam-pos (ly:grob-property beam 'positions))
(padding (ly:grob-property grob 'padding))
(beam-thick (* 0.5 (ly:grob-property beam 'beam-thickness)))
(dir (ly:grob-property grob 'direction)))
(coord-translate beam-pos (* dir (+ beam-thick padding))
\relative c'' {
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\override TupletBracket #'positions = #proc
%\override TupletBracket #'bracket-visibility = ##t
\times 2/3 {
g8 fis g
g\mordent fis g
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
Quoting James : 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17' Fedora 17 packages Lilypond 2.15.29 currently. In my understanding, it means that the maintainer believes that a new stable version of Lilypond will be released before or shortly after Fedora 17. I'm sure Lilypond 2.16 would be packaged quickly once it's released because, the maintainer is betting that it will be. I tried the version packaged in Fedora 17 on one of the scores and found it utterly broken (bogus barchecks everywhere), so I upgraded to the git version of Lilypond. But I would gladly use 2.16 at least on some systems once it's available in Fedora. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: tuplet number placement and ornament
Nick,
> In the following, even though I've turned off the tuplet bracket
>> stencil, the tuplet number is still placed as though the stencil was
>> there:
>>
>> \version "2.15.37"
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>>\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
>>\override TupletBracket #'stencil = ##f
>>\times 2/3 { g8 fis g g\mordent fis g }
>> }
>>
>>
Since the number is positioned according to where the bracket would be, you
could override 'positions of TupletBracket:
\relative c'' {
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {
g8 fis g
\override TupletBracket #'positions = #'(3.34 . 3.34)
g\mordent fis g
}
}
HTH,
David
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
Hello, On 30 April 2012 10:16, Francisco Vila wrote: > 2012/4/30 James : >> Martin, >> >> On 29 April 2012 17:28, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Any chance Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17 ? >> >> You need to talk to the/a Fedora Maintainer to get them to package it. > > No Fedora maintainer can package LilyPond 2.16 if it has not been > released, right? And it hasn't. Yes but I took that to mean that *when* it is released can it be included in Fedora. We wouldn't (I assume) want to package an unstable release and we are obviously(?) not going to do stuff on 2.14.2 with a RC for 2.16 around the corner. So actually it would seem logical to ask this specific question, perhaps phrased as 'Any chance 'that the forthcoming' Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17' ;) As the acronym goes: FTFY James ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
2012/4/30 James : > Martin, > > On 29 April 2012 17:28, Martin Tarenskeen wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Any chance Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17 ? > > You need to talk to the/a Fedora Maintainer to get them to package it. No Fedora maintainer can package LilyPond 2.16 if it has not been released, right? And it hasn't. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond-book and TeXshop on Mac: Newbie questions
Hi, thanks to all who responded to my posts. > > One of the best way to use lilypond-book with TeXShop is to use a dedicated > "engine". Nicola Vitacolonna, a lilypond and LaTeX user, made a very > interesting one. You can find it here : > > http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~nicola.vitacolonna/home/content/lilypond-engines-texshop > http://users.dimi.uniud.it/~nicola.vitacolonna/home/content/lilypond-engines-texshop > > > Unfortunately, layout in snippets created by lilypond-book is not the best > part of lilypond-book. Usually, I use lilypond-book snippets for 1 or 2 > lines scores. For more important scores, I include the pdf created by > lilypond. For long scores, pdfpages is usefull > > Philippe > For the time being, Nicola Vitacolonna's engine(s) do(es) the trick for me. Thanks a lot! Also thanks for the warning about snippets in lilypond-book. Just one more thing I found out: The engine(s) cannot handle special characters in the path names, even when they do not appear in a relative path. I had a subfolder ./Exemples with the Lilypond files, but the path further up contained french special characters, so I ran into «file not found» troubles. > To your question -- also on a Mac 10.7.3 -- I am using a different > approach, so won't be able to help you. (I use a makefile, which > automatically executs only those commands that are needed because of > some changes, but my setup is probably too involved and specialized to > be easily transportable. I can let you know howto if you want to try > your hand on using "make" and Makefile.) > > Rembrandt Thanks for the offer Rembrandt. And yes please, just out of curiosity, I'd like to know how you do this. I guess your makefile makes you less dependent on changes to TexShop or Lilypond as bundled apps? BTW: How do you install Lilypond? Do you use Fink? Have a great time, Dona P.S: I'd like to apologize for the initial flood of messages, it actually took several hours for my first post to get through, so I kept trying… Maybe adding a little waring on the mailing list website would be helpful, like: «first posts may take longer because they are moderated» > On 4/26/12 8:49 AM, Dona Mommsen wrote: > Hi, > > I'm subscribed to this list for years, as I'm an occasional user of lilypond. > I'm trying to post to this list, but so far, my messages didn't get through. > I've tried sending e-mails directly and I tried the web-interface. > From the gmane list, I got through the confirmation process. > The e-mail I received mentioned that my message should show up in a few > minutes. > That was hours ago. > > What am I missing? > > Cheers, > > Dona ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond 2.16 fedora 17
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012, James wrote: Any chance Lilypond 2.16 will be accepted in Fedora 17 ? You need to talk to the/a Fedora Maintainer to get them to package it. No one as far as I know who contributes to the LP project does this actively. I'm not that technically savvy on this topic, but I seem to recall that because of LP's use of Guile 1.8 and not Guile 2.0 that it caused some headaches (they are not (very/at all) backward compatible) for another distribution package maintainer. It looks that the soon to be released Fedora 17 will still have guile 1.8.8, due to compatibility problems with for example Lilypond: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678238 which should give the Lilypond developers some more time to work towards guile 2.x -- MT ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
