Re: is shapeSlur broken?
Am 29.04.2012 00:26, schrieb David Nalesnik: Hi Urs, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de mailto:li...@ursliska.de wrote: Am 27.04.2012 19 tel:27.04.2012%2019:30, schrieb David Nalesnik: Hi Urs, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Urs Liska li...@ursliska.de mailto:li...@ursliska.de wrote: Hi David, thank you for now. I'll look into it. But isn't it very likely that I have to reshape a slur anyway when it changes from broken to unbroken? In that case I'd even say the errors are a 'feature' so you notice it ... Provided it is documented enough not to drive you crazy ... Sure, that's true. Presumably when you're looking for that fine control, you've settled on the layout in all but the tiny details! it's not only this. I think that with any slur that one might decide to shape manually a change in line break will spoil it anyway. So I'm not so sure it's a useful goal to make such a function fool-proof in this respect. Without the modification, though, the error would cause the file to fail and the error message is a little opaque. (Well, it's quite exact, but it takes some study to figure out how it happened.) Well, the file fails (at least lilypond says so), but it actually compiles, it's only the function that isn't applied. But you're right to assume that the normal user can't cope with the error messages ;-) I could create a warning here, something like: slur is not broken anymore. If that's possible in such functions, I'd find it very useful. Even better: tell the user: The slur has now X parts, please adapt the function call One thing you can do is \shapeSlur #'( ... list of offsets ...) or \shapeSlur #'(( ... list of offsets ...)) without the file failing. Since this function has come up again, I wonder if I could get your (and other people's) opinion on syntax. When I first wrote the offsetting function (http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=639)I http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=639%29I thought that alists were a bother to type. But 'control-pojnts _is_ an alist '((x1 . y1) (x2 . y2) ... )) , so shouldn't we have something like this? \shapeSlur #'((dx1 . dy1) (dx2 . dy2) ...) I realize that there's more to type, but wouldn't this be clearer to use? (As well as being more consistent with how LilyPond represents this type of data)? First: I think this is a _very_ useful function that should even be made more widely known. I'm very glad that you think so! Second: your syntax suggestion looks very good to me. Of course it is more to type. But that is more than outweighed by the advantages. it's easier to write and it's especially much easier to read. When changing the offsets (which you do multiple times until you get a good result ...) I'm always finding me counting params (in order to find the right item to change) which surely takes more time and concentration than typing (once) a few brackets and points. Yes, I also find it very easy to make mistakes when typing in lists separated only by spaces. Trying out examples for the attached file, I was pleasantly surprised at how much easier-- and faster! -- it is to use the alist notation. Certainly, it is easier to read. Plus, I think it makes the offsetting function a bit less ugly. Third: I suggest to add support for PhrasingSlurs and Ties in order to make it more general. For PhrasingSlurs it's just a matter of writing a new entrance function, but for Ties you need new shape-ties and alter-tie-curve subroutines. See the attached file that is the result of an earlier enquiry on this mailing list. The functions themselves don't incorporate your newest additions (sorry, it's still a bit over my head), but you'll see what I mean. One solution is to use a syntax like this: \shapeCurve #Tie #'( ((dx1 . dy1) . . . )) and then to let the functions choose the right control-points callback from a list based on the name of the grob you're overriding. (Dmytro used this in a variant of his adaptation which I saw off-list.) I thought it might be nice to have \shapeSlur, \shapeTie, etc. To avoid duplicating so much code, I pass the relevant 'control-points callback to the functions which need it. Of course, you can extend this list to whatever takes control-points. As you mention, \shapePhrasingSlur would be the same as \shapeSlur. You can do \shapeTupletBracket in 2.14.2, but it looks like 'control-points is gone in 2.15. to sum up what I said: If you'd volunteer to do the following it would be a very valuable contribution to LilyPond's usability ;-) I'd be delighted to do whatever I can. - let the function check the number of arguments and give meaningful warnings instead of errors
Clickable table of contents
Hello everybody,
I've just recently started to use Lilypond. I'm interested in generating a
PDF with links from the ToC to each song (for use in a ebook reader).
I've managed to generate the ToC (manually) using the instructions in the
manual:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Table-of-contents
What I don't manage at all, and seem unable to find references to, is to
enable hyperlinking. In latex I would simply include the hyperref package.
This seems so straightforward that I think that I'm missing something
obvious.
Thanks for any pointers.
I would also be interested on how to get automatically a ToC entry for each
song, I'm currently doing it like this:
\tocItem \markup Author - Song
\bookpart {
\header { title=Song subtitle=Author }
which causes some nagging duplication. But this is secondary anyway.
Thanks!
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Clickable table of contents
Álex R. Mosteo wrote:
Hello everybody,
I've just recently started to use Lilypond. I'm interested in generating a
PDF with links from the ToC to each song (for use in a ebook reader).
I've managed to generate the ToC (manually) using the instructions in the
manual:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Table-of-
contents
What I don't manage at all, and seem unable to find references to, is to
enable hyperlinking. In latex I would simply include the hyperref package.
This seems so straightforward that I think that I'm missing something
obvious.
Thanks for any pointers.
I think now that the way is to use lilypond-book. Although if there were a
simpler way it would be nice to know. Thanks!
Alex.
I would also be interested on how to get automatically a ToC entry for
each song, I'm currently doing it like this:
\tocItem \markup Author - Song
\bookpart {
\header { title=Song subtitle=Author }
which causes some nagging duplication. But this is secondary anyway.
Thanks!
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Installing LilyPond fonts for use in programs under Windows 7
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:37 AM, philip.tho...@bluewin.ch philip.tho...@bluewin.ch wrote: This is my first post, but I've used LilyPond for a number of projects and love the beautiful output. I am also learning to love her possibilities for shortcuts and tweaking output, although some possibilities are more lovable more than others. (I'll have a question or two about defining markup commands at some stage.) That's not my question now though, which is: Is it possible to install the Feta/Emmentaler font(s?) in Windows 7 so that characters become available in applications running under Windows? I tried simply double clicking on the Emmentaler otf files, with the result that they got installed according to the Windows Control Panel's Fonts feature, and the font name appeared in Windows programs' font lists, but the glyphs just didn't appear. Is there some other way (i.e. without installing the fonts) of straightforwardly including LilyPond glyphs in files prepared using Windows programs? The emmentaler and feta fonts use a non-standard encoding, and are typically accessed by glyph name. I have no idea how to access such glyphs from inside MS Word. And by the way, what is the relationship between Feta and Emmentaler? feta was the original Type1 font. Since Type1 fonts can only hold 256 entries, we had several of them. Later we unified them into Emmentaler (a big cheese) which has all the glyphs in a single font. I have searched the documentation and the user forum as best I could and didn't succeed in finding answers. My apologies if I've missed them as a beginner. If that is the case, I'd be grateful for a (hopefully polite-ish) suggestion as to where I should look. I'm using LilyPond 2.14.2 (or maybe 2.16, as from tomorrow ...). Philip -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - han...@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Clickable table of contents
On Fri, 04 May 2012 17:14:38 +0200
Álex R. Mosteo alejan...@mosteo.com wrote:
Álex R. Mosteo wrote:
Hello everybody,
I've just recently started to use Lilypond. I'm interested in generating a
PDF with links from the ToC to each song (for use in a ebook reader).
I've managed to generate the ToC (manually) using the instructions in the
manual:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.12/Documentation/user/lilypond/Table-of-
contents
What I don't manage at all, and seem unable to find references to, is to
enable hyperlinking. In latex I would simply include the hyperref package.
This seems so straightforward that I think that I'm missing something
obvious.
Thanks for any pointers.
I think now that the way is to use lilypond-book. Although if there were a
simpler way it would be nice to know. Thanks!
Alex.
I would also be interested on how to get automatically a ToC entry for
each song, I'm currently doing it like this:
\tocItem \markup Author - Song
\bookpart {
\header { title=Song subtitle=Author }
which causes some nagging duplication. But this is secondary anyway.
Thanks!
If you are creating a songbook, a notation editon or anything except(!) a book
with mostly text plus some music examples I would advise you to not use
lilypond book (the Latex interface, not the \book lilypond command).
It does not know anything about system/staff spacing so your songbook will
eventually look like crap.
I am in search as well. In search of a good way to combine mostly notation,
spanning multiple pages in one piece, and adding editorial notes, introduction,
a text chapter or subtext here and there. But it does not work with lilypond
book.
Maybe the right way is to export to a scalable format (svg, ps) with border
size zero, without page numbers, footers, copyright notice and all that and
embed those pure-notation pages into a text canvas.
This way you get at least correct staff spacing and page breaks where you
wanted them. And you can work and edit in pure Lilypond for a good preview and
work enviroment without worrying that your layout changes once you add the
book parts.
Nils
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: uniform-stretching results in too much space after barline
Hello Janek,
2012/5/3 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
A simplified snippet below. I also think this may qualify as a bug,
so i'm cross-posting to bugreports.
cheers,
Janek
\version 2.15.36
\markup uniform-stretching results in too much space after barline
\score {
\repeat unfold 16 gis'8
\layout {
ragged-right = ##f
\override Score.SpacingSpanner #'uniform-stretching = ##t
}
}
\markup compile this to see how the output should look like:
\score {
\repeat unfold 16 gis'8
\layout {
ragged-right = ##f
}
}
This seems to be already reported:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1149
Marek Klein
bug squad
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
