Re: move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno dom 2 apr 2017 alle 22:24, Simon Albrecht 
 ha scritto:

Am 02.04.2017 um 19:47 schrieb Federico Bruni:

% this doesn't work:
 \override RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #3
 \mark \markup { "Coda" }

Just use
\tweak self-alignment-X …
and you’re all set.




I like this concise tweak.
Thank you all




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno dom 2 apr 2017 alle 22:24, Simon Albrecht 
 ha scritto:

Am 02.04.2017 um 20:31 schrieb tisimst:
Under normal circumstances, it is implied that you are referring to 
the Staff context.


That’s “to the Bottom (or Voice) context”, isn’t it?




Sure, I haven't typeset music for some time and I forgot the basics!

It would be nice if LilyPond printed a warning in such a case. 
Something like:


Warning: you are trying to override the settings of a Score object 
within a Voice context. Please specify the grob context explicitly.





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Noeck]

Hi

> I have a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of
> 
> { \time 2/4 r4*12 }
> { \time 2/4 R4*12 }
> 
> as conveying the same semantics.

I don't understand what's so hard to understand about Simons question.
Of course there is a difference between the full measure rest and a
normal rest. LilyPond offers the r and R to write them. I learned that
way when learning LP and it always made sense to me. The question is if
that distinction could be done automatically without the user having to
care about it.

Simon's mail makes perfectly sense to me and from all the discussion so
far, I still can't see why the distinction couldn't be done by the
engraver following a given layout setting. The two examples above only
show that LP handles r and R differently (of course).

One situation where I am not sure the automatic algo would do the right
thing is this: Generally, I would use the "R-layout" for rests of one or
more measures. But in a polyphone SATB choir, when only one voice has a
rest lasting the whole measure, is it still that clear? Isn't it more
similar to the half measure rest (r) in the other voice? Perhaps there
are clear rules for that. I just wanted to mention it.

Best,
Joram

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Suppose someone™ made the effort
>>> and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would
>>> such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest
>>> and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where
>>> appropriate?
>> Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other.
>
> Now that’s what I wanted to discuss – sorry for insisting. r and R are
> /engraved/ differently, but – thinking outside the box – as far as I
> can see, there is no semantic difference.

If that's what you wanted to discuss, then how about actually discussing
it rather than making apodictic statements?  I gave an example.  I have
a hard time understanding how one can consider the visuals of

{ \time 2/4 r4*12 }
{ \time 2/4 R4*12 }

as conveying the same semantics.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup:

Suppose someone™ made the effort
and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would
such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest
and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where
appropriate?

Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other.


Now that’s what I wanted to discuss – sorry for insisting. r and R are 
/engraved/ differently, but – thinking outside the box – as far as I can 
see, there is no semantic difference. Nor can I think of a usecase which 
requires distinguishing them in a way that couldn’t just as well be done 
automatically. I’m curious: does anybody have one?


Best, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup:

Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what part of this an engraver
can’t do.

The point is not that it can't be done but that it shouldn't be done.


Oh, sorry for the misconception.
Best, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> Am 02.04.2017 um 22:24 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Simon Albrecht  writes:
>>> Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
 R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
 full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
 length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
 rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.
>>> But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7
>>> event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its
>>> duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning
>>> full measures and normal rests for the remainder?
>> What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear?  The
>> rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments
>> and different numbers of grobs.
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what part of this an engraver
> can’t do.

The point is not that it can't be done but that it shouldn't be done.

> Completion_rests_engraver checks for barlines and prints one or
> multiple rests depending on these. Suppose someone™ made the effort
> and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would
> such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest
> and Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where
> appropriate?

Because it wouldn't be the right thing to change one for the other.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 22:24 schrieb David Kastrup:

Simon Albrecht  writes:

Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup:

R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.

But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7
event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its
duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning
full measures and normal rests for the remainder?

What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear?  The
rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments
and different numbers of grobs.


Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t know what part of this an engraver 
can’t do. Completion_rests_engraver checks for barlines and prints one 
or multiple rests depending on these. Suppose someone™ made the effort 
and folded Multi_measure_rest_engraver into Rest_engraver, why would 
such an engraver be fundamentally able to take just one type of rest and 
Do The Right Thing™, using ordinary rests or MMRs where appropriate?


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
>> full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
>> length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
>> rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.
>
> But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7
> event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its
> duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning
> full measures and normal rests for the remainder?

What about "is fundamentally different in meaning" was unclear?  The
rests have completely different visuals, not "just" different alignments
and different numbers of grobs.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 19:47 schrieb Federico Bruni:

% this doesn't work:
 \override RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #3
 \mark \markup { "Coda" } 


Just use
\tweak self-alignment-X …
and you’re all set.

Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 20:31 schrieb tisimst:
Under normal circumstances, it is implied that you are referring to 
the Staff context.


That’s “to the Bottom (or Voice) context”, isn’t it?

Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 17:41 schrieb Cynthia Karl:

Is there a better way?


I started off reading the digests as well. But since I discovered that 
Thunderbird can sort messages by thread, I much prefer receiving single 
messages, viewing them in this very sensible ordering and replying to 
individual messages, using the mechanism Wol already explained 
(highlight the part you want to quote, or if nothing is highlighted, 
have all the message quoted).
Also Thunderbird allows writing both plain text and formatted e-mail, 
choosing which one to use (plain-text being preferable here on the 
list), using filters to automatically sort each mailing list’s e-mails 
into a dedicated folder, 

I can recommend it.
But I know that all this might not apply to other environments.

Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Replying to the digest, was Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond

[David Wright]

On Sun 02 Apr 2017 at 10:41:22 (-0500), Cynthia Karl wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 12:39:23 -0700 (MST)
> > From: tisimst 
> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond
> > Message-ID:
> > 
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> > 
> > On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Son_V [via Lilypond] <
> > ml-node+s1069038n201838...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> @Abraham
> >> Thanks, You're gentle.
> >> But... if nabble is not the correct way, where should I post?
> >> Remember, I just googled for "Lilypond forum" and I got nabble.
> >> 
> > 
> > There's nothing wrong with using Nabble, but you must not have actually
> > subscribed to the lilypond-user mailing list:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user. I suggest you do so
> > (does Nabble not ask you if you're subscribed to the respective list
> > anymore? It used to...).
> > 
> > Either way, instead of clicking on "Reply", first click on "More v" and you
> > should see the option "Reply to author". Click that one instead and it will
> > automatically add the quoted text from the post you're going to comment on,
> > then you can add your response below it (after trimming any parts that
> > aren't directly related to your response, of course).
> 
> That might work in your world, but not in mine.  I get the lilypond user 
> digest on a mac.  There is no “More v” or “Reply to author”.  I have to click 
> on reply, change the subject line, and delete all the messages in the digest 
> except the one I’m replying to.  Is there a better way?

A lot of "if"s follow.

If you get the digest as a long email of continuous text, it's likely
that each item is preceded by a header line like (yours)
 Message-ID: <5e13dfc7-8fa0-490f-98ae-e37ecdef5...@mac.com>
I know you can see it because you've quoted it above; that might
be different for other people.
If you paste the <...> string into a reply-to line like (mine)
 In-Reply-To: <5e13dfc7-8fa0-490f-98ae-e37ecdef5...@mac.com>
that will at put your message in the correct place in the thread.
That's if you can see/edit the headers; not every client can.

If you get the digest in the other form, where messages are in
attachments (and their attachments are attached, not scrubbed), eg

  1 lilypond-user Digest, Vol 173, Issue 5 [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.5K]
  2 Today's Topics (6 messages)[text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.3K]
  3   [multipa/digest, 7bit, 44K]
  4 ├─>Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond [message/rfc822, 7bit, 3.2K]
  5 ├─>Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond [message/rfc822, 7bit, 1.1K]
  6 ├─>Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond [message/rfc822, 7bit, 3.8K]
  7 ├─>Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond [message/rfc822, 7bit, 1.2K]
  8 ├─>Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond [message/rfc822, 7bit, 4.1K]
  9 └─>Drawing wavy line across the bars  [message/rfc822, 7bit, 30K]
 10   └─>[multipa/related, 7bit, 29K]
 11 ├─>  [multipa/alternativ, 7bit, 2.6K]
 12 │ ├─> [text/plain, 7bit, utf-8, 1.0K]
 13 │ └─>[text/html, quoted, utf-8, 1.4K]
 14 └─>1.png [image/png, base64, 26K]
 15 Digest Footer  [text/plain, 7bit, us-ascii, 0.1K]

you might find that you can open and then reply to the appropriate
attachment, in which case the In-Reply-To: line might get filled in
automatically.

Unfortunately, none of this might work. The world is full of
broken email clients, including some of the most popular.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 15:25 schrieb David Kastrup:

R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.


But does it actually demand too much of an engraver to take an r4*7 
event, check whether and how many full or partial measures are in its 
duration, write full-bar or multi-measure rests for all parts spanning 
full measures and normal rests for the remainder?


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[tisimst]

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 11:47 AM Federico Bruni-2 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n20185...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Hi all
>
> I have a simple question, but I couldn't find a solution.
> I'm always confused with horizontal alignment..
>
> I want to move the RehearsalMark object to the left:
>
>
> \version "2.19.57"
> {
>   R1*4 \break
>   R1
>   % how to move it to the left?
>   % this doesn't work:
>   \override RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #3
>   \mark \markup { "Coda" }
>   R1*4
> }
>

RehearsalMarks live in the Score context, so you need to change it to

\override Score.RehearsaMark.self-...

Under normal circumstances, it is implied that you are referring to the
Staff context.

HTH,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/move-the-RehearsalMark-object-to-the-left-tp201858p201859.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

move the RehearsalMark object to the left

[Federico Bruni]

Hi all

I have a simple question, but I couldn't find a solution.
I'm always confused with horizontal alignment..

I want to move the RehearsalMark object to the left:


\version "2.19.57"
{
 R1*4 \break
 R1
 % how to move it to the left?
 % this doesn't work:
 \override RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #3
 \mark \markup { "Coda" }
 R1*4
}




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond

[Wols Lists]

On 02/04/17 16:41, Cynthia Karl wrote:
>> Either way, instead of clicking on "Reply", first click on "More v" and you
>> > should see the option "Reply to author". Click that one instead and it will
>> > automatically add the quoted text from the post you're going to comment on,
>> > then you can add your response below it (after trimming any parts that
>> > aren't directly related to your response, of course).

> That might work in your world, but not in mine.  I get the lilypond user 
> digest on a mac.  There is no “More v” or “Reply to author”.  I have to click 
> on reply, change the subject lin

Dunno whether it works in your world, but (Thunderbird) if I select the
text I want to reply to, THEN click on "reply" or whatever, it just
quotes the selected text.

Cheers,
Wol

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond

[Cynthia Karl]

> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2017 12:39:23 -0700 (MST)
> From: tisimst 
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: An 'interpreter' for lilypond
> Message-ID:
>   
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Son_V [via Lilypond] <
> ml-node+s1069038n201838...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:
> 
>> @Abraham
>> Thanks, You're gentle.
>> But... if nabble is not the correct way, where should I post?
>> Remember, I just googled for "Lilypond forum" and I got nabble.
>> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with using Nabble, but you must not have actually
> subscribed to the lilypond-user mailing list:
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user. I suggest you do so
> (does Nabble not ask you if you're subscribed to the respective list
> anymore? It used to...).
> 
> Either way, instead of clicking on "Reply", first click on "More v" and you
> should see the option "Reply to author". Click that one instead and it will
> automatically add the quoted text from the post you're going to comment on,
> then you can add your response below it (after trimming any parts that
> aren't directly related to your response, of course).

That might work in your world, but not in mine.  I get the lilypond user digest 
on a mac.  There is no “More v” or “Reply to author”.  I have to click on 
reply, change the subject line, and delete all the messages in the digest 
except the one I’m replying to.  Is there a better way?

Regards,
Pat
> 
> Best,
> Abraham
> 
> 
> 
> 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> Am 01.04.2017 um 17:21 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Formatting is completely different (multi measure rests are spanners!),
>> so articulations etc will behave surprisingly if LilyPond switches on
>> its own initiative.
>
> I take that as a ‘yes, it’s possible, though the changes required to
> handling of MMRs would be quite fundamental’…

You are taking more than I provide.  A MMR is fundamentally different
from normal rests, more so than how a bordun note (which LilyPond does
not provide for) is fundamentally different from a normal note.

R4*7 is fundamentally different in meaning (provide 7/4 total amount of
full-measure rests) from r4*7 (a quarter rest visual with 7 times its
length).  Full-measure rests are aligned to the middle of the bar, other
rests are aligned to the beginning of the bar and/or parallel music.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Drawing wavy line across the bars

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Simon,

Of course, yes, but overkill surely. Let's see what the OP really wants.
Not hard to do this manually for a typical jazz piece.

Andrew


On 2 April 2017 at 23:18, Simon Albrecht  wrote:

>
> Well, it’s a start. It could also be made easier accessible using a music
> function, but still the extents will have to be specified manually, don’t
> adapt to layout and can’t be broken. In order to input a duration and have
> it handled elegantly, you would indeed need an engraver and a custom grob
> and event type. I’m sorry I can’t help there; there’s one example of a
> custom Scheme engraver in the regression tests and there are several
> examples to be found in the list archives as well as probably in the LSR.
>
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 01.04.2017 um 17:21 schrieb David Kastrup:

Formatting is completely different (multi measure rests are spanners!),
so articulations etc will behave surprisingly if LilyPond switches on
its own initiative.


I take that as a ‘yes, it’s possible, though the changes required to 
handling of MMRs would be quite fundamental’…


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Drawing wavy line across the bars

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 02.04.2017 um 05:56 schrieb Andrew Bernard:


\version "2.19.58"

{
  c''4
  ^\markup { \draw-squiggle-line #1.2 #'(20 . 0) ##t }
}

NR Section A.11.3.

No custom engraver required.


Well, it’s a start. It could also be made easier accessible using a 
music function, but still the extents will have to be specified 
manually, don’t adapt to layout and can’t be broken. In order to input a 
duration and have it handled elegantly, you would indeed need an 
engraver and a custom grob and event type. I’m sorry I can’t help there; 
there’s one example of a custom Scheme engraver in the regression tests 
and there are several examples to be found in the list archives as well 
as probably in the LSR.


HTH, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: No R in input! (Proposal for discussion)

[Graham King]

On Sat, 2017-04-01 at 17:21 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Simon Albrecht  writes:
> 
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > once again I find myself typesetting ancient music, which poses
> > special challenges with regard to separation of content and
> > presentation. Right now, I’m talking about the fact that bar lines are
> > an editor’s decision and not part of the musical content – different
> > editors might place bar lines after a breve, a semibreve, none at all,
> > or only inbetween staves.
> >
> > This means amongst others that in order to use the same music source
> > for different editions, it should not be hardcoded which rests are
> > MMRs and which aren’t. Also, I don’t think there’s any ambiguity in
> > the following translation: Every rest which fills one or more entire
> > bars should be treated as a MMR by the typesetting engine.
> >
> > Thus, I would like to deliver a plea to perspectively abolish the
> > distinction between r and R in LilyPond source code and have the
> > engravers handle the difference.
> >
> > This would also get us rid of one possibility to make mistakes in engraving.
> >
> > I had this idea right now and it feels too convincing to me to
> > actually be as good as it seems. Hence I’d love to hear your
> > opinions. What complications are there (aside from the effort of
> > implementation) that I fail to see?
> 
> Polyphony can become rather awkward to read if some voice has a full bar
> rest while another has material.
> 
> {
> << c''1 \\ R1 >>
> }
> 
> Formatting is completely different (multi measure rests are spanners!),
> so articulations etc will behave surprisingly if LilyPond switches on
> its own initiative.
> 
As a fellow-editor of editions from mensural notation, I too would
welcome Simon's proposal to separate presentation from content.  In the
context of such editions, the objections that David identifies would not
arise.
Could Simon's proposal be implemented as an engraver, to be invoked in
such editions alongside Completion_rest_engraver ?
Autoidentify_whole_measure_rest_engraver anyone?


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user