Re: simple scheme in lilypond
Thank you Jan, very clear.
g.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 11:48, Jan-Peter Voigt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the $ sign has a special meaning of "instant scheme-expression". An
> instant scheme expression is evaluated instantly *and* the result is
> observed so that lilypond can decide what to do with it. When lily
> receives something that can be treated as a markup from an instant
> scheme expression it is handled like \markup {}. But a pure string is
> not a core lily-expression like music or markup. Thats the reason (3)
> fails with an error. The result of a plain scheme-exression introduced
> with # is simply ignored in root context.
>
> HTH
> Jan-Peter
>
>
> Am 27.11.18 um 09:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
> > Probably these are very trivial things. Sorry to ask them but would like
> > to understand.
> >
> > If I write (1):
> >
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > $(object->string (+ 3 2))
> >
> >
> > Lilypond is happy and compile to a pdf file showing "5".
> >
> > Even this simpler code works... (2)
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > $"Hello"
> >
> >
> > and generate a pdf file showing "Hello".
> >
> > It is clear to me that $ introduce a scheme expression that is
> > evaluated. And in the previous two examples the scheme code is evaluated
> > to strings. But I don't understand why lilypond outputs them. If I write
> > (3):
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > "Test"
> >
> >
> > this does not compile. So I would think that the "correct" code to
> > output evaluated expression in the pdf file should be (4)
> >
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > \markup $(object->string (+ 3 2))
> >
> >
> > or this (5)
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > \markup $"Hello"
> >
> >
> > Why the behaviour of (1) and (2) ?
> >
> > * * *
> >
> > I tried to rewrite (1) and (2) with the hash mark instead of dollar (6):
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > #(object->string (+ 3 2))
> >
> >
> > and (7):
> >
> > \version "2.19.82"
> > #"Hello"
> >
> >
> > This time, there is no output in the pdf file. Why this difference?
> >
> > Thank you, g.
> >
> > ___
> > lilypond-user mailing list
> > lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> >
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Protecting against page breaks in markup
> -- Forwarded message -- > From: Richard Shann > To: lilypond-user > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 15:20:04 + > Subject: Protecting against page breaks in markup > I'm creating an index to my scores, in the form of a sequence of > LilyPond markups (for title, composer, first few bars etc). > It is working well apart from page breaking which can occur mid-entry. > Is there a way of turning page breaks off and back on around each > entry? > > Richard Shann When pagination gets hairy, I use \autoPageBreaksOff, and then manually put in all page breaks using \pageBreak HTH, Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No lyric extenders for RhythmicStaff if music comes from a variable
> Well, to summarize: > > In less than an hour after posting a question / potential bug > report, there is > > - a quick & easy solution provided by an experienced fellow user, > > - an explanation and some perspective from the main developer > working on that part of the code. > > Unbeatable. And on top of this, the excellent quality that LilyPond > produces (which is often remarked upon by students & colleagues that > see my worksheets containing lots of Lilypond music examples). It's > simply wonderful to work with this program - thanks so much! Hear, hear! And yes, great kudos to all the helpful guys on this list! Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No lyric extenders for RhythmicStaff if music comes from a variable
Some curly braces seem to help:
\new RhythmicStaff { \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ } }
Using \displayMusic shows that use of the variable versus the explicit
\relative produces a different S-expression, but I am not sure where
the fault lies.
I never managed to get the parser to group \addlyrics just with the
desired expressions. Operator priorities for shift/reduce conflict
resolution are hard to get right, and this is the major case where I did
not manage even though there are several issues and patches trying to
fix it.
Well, to summarize:
In less than an hour after posting a question / potential bug report,
there is
- a quick & easy solution provided by an experienced fellow user,
- an explanation and some perspective from the main developer working on
that part of the code.
Unbeatable. And on top of this, the excellent quality that LilyPond
produces (which is often remarked upon by students & colleagues that see
my worksheets containing lots of Lilypond music examples). It's simply
wonderful to work with this program - thanks so much!
Best
Lukas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No lyric extenders for RhythmicStaff if music comes from a variable
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2018-11-27 1:22 pm, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
>
>> \version "2.19.80"
>>
>> Melodie = \relative g' {
>> g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r
>> }
>>
>> \new Staff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
>>
>> \new RhythmicStaff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
>>
>> \new Staff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics { Once
>> there was a way __ }
>>
>> \new RhythmicStaff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics {
>> Once there was a way __ }
>>
>> As can be seen, the second example does not contain the Lyric
>> extender. Why is this so, and how can I get it back? (True for 2.19.80
>> as well as not-so-current master from a few weeks/months ago.)
>
> Some curly braces seem to help:
>
>
> \new RhythmicStaff { \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ } }
>
>
> Using \displayMusic shows that use of the variable versus the explicit
> \relative produces a different S-expression, but I am not sure where
> the fault lies.
I never managed to get the parser to group \addlyrics just with the
desired expressions. Operator priorities for shift/reduce conflict
resolution are hard to get right, and this is the major case where I did
not manage even though there are several issues and patches trying to
fix it.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: No lyric extenders for RhythmicStaff if music comes from a variable
On 2018-11-27 1:22 pm, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote:
Dear list,
consider:
\version "2.19.80"
Melodie = \relative g' {
g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r
}
\new Staff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
\new RhythmicStaff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
\new Staff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics { Once
there was a way __ }
\new RhythmicStaff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics {
Once there was a way __ }
As can be seen, the second example does not contain the Lyric
extender. Why is this so, and how can I get it back? (True for 2.19.80
as well as not-so-current master from a few weeks/months ago.)
Some curly braces seem to help:
\new RhythmicStaff { \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ } }
Using \displayMusic shows that use of the variable versus the explicit
\relative produces a different S-expression, but I am not sure where the
fault lies.
-- Aaron Hill
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
No lyric extenders for RhythmicStaff if music comes from a variable
Dear list,
consider:
\version "2.19.80"
Melodie = \relative g' {
g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r
}
\new Staff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
\new RhythmicStaff \Melodie \addlyrics { Once there was a way __ }
\new Staff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics { Once
there was a way __ }
\new RhythmicStaff \relative g' { g8 16 16 16 8.~ 4 r } \addlyrics {
Once there was a way __ }
As can be seen, the second example does not contain the Lyric extender.
Why is this so, and how can I get it back? (True for 2.19.80 as well as
not-so-current master from a few weeks/months ago.)
Best
Lukas
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Protecting against page breaks in markup
Am Di., 27. Nov. 2018 um 16:22 Uhr schrieb Richard Shann : > > I'm creating an index to my scores, in the form of a sequence of > LilyPond markups (for title, composer, first few bars etc). What exactly are you doing? An example would be nice. > It is working well apart from page breaking which can occur mid-entry. > Is there a way of turning page breaks off and back on around each > entry? Well, of course you know about \noPageBreak and \pageBreak. Probably you can wrap a \column around all the single markups. At least page-break can then only happen before or after the whole thingy. Depends on what you actually (want to) do. Cheers, Harm ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re:v2.19.82 documentation unusable? (Aaron Hill)
> On Nov 24, 2018, at 9:51 AM,Aaron Hill wrote: > > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 10:34:39 -0800 > From: Aaron Hill > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: v2.19.82 documentation unusable? > Message-ID: <3cf7a16e59434b69a91678193e225...@hillvisions.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 2018-11-23 7:30 am, David Kastrup wrote: >> Patrick Karl writes: >> >>> I thank everyone for the replies. I?ll just wait till it?s fixed. >>> >>> I tried to find a version of Emmentaler-20 I could install on my mac, >>> but had no luck. Is that a way out? I have to admit that fonts are >>> pretty much a black hole for me. >> >> PDF files should embed every font they contain. If you have to install >> external fonts for viewing them, something is broken. Try using the >> documentation files of 2.19.81 instead. > > Since the issue is that fonts are not embedded, I wondered if the > solution is as simple as embedding them after the fact. The important > missing fonts in question are shipped with LilyPond, so then it was > matter of looking online for a little bit of GhostScript: > > gs -o path-to-fixed.pdf \ > -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -dEmbedAllFonts=true \ > -sFONTPATH="path-to-fonts" \ > path-to-broken.pdf > > On my system, "path-to-fonts" would be: > > /usr/local/lilypond/usr/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf/ > > Running the command against all of the 2.19.82 PDFs from the web site, > the results are a significant improvement. There were only a few > substitutions due to additional missing fonts, but those are largely > irrelevant (i.e. "LuxiMono" used as an example of overriding the > typewriter font). > > Something for folks to consider to tide us over until the next release. > > -- Aaron Hill > On my mac I had to do: GS_LIB=/Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/share/ghostscript/9.21/Resource/Init export GS_LIB or gs would not execute due not being able to find gs_init.ps. I tried to use “-x” with the above path but gs didn’t recognize the “-x”. Also, “path-to-fonts” on my system was: /Applications/LilyPond.app/Contents/Resources/share/lilypond/current/fonts/otf I have run your command on changes.pdf, and it seems to have fixed the problem. Thanks to all for their comments. I wonder if there might be some new users (or old) that tried v2.19.82 and ran into this problem and got frustrated. Maybe it would be helpful to delete the English versions of the v2.19.82 manuals from the lilypond.org site, possibly with a note to use the v2.19.81 versions, at least until a new version of lilypond without this problem comes out. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Enabling Frescobaldi to load external extensions
I have (finally) started to work towards making it possible to extend Frescobaldi with extensions. I have opened a Pull Request at https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/pull/1129 and invite anyone interested in looking at and discussing it. Probably this is mostly accessible for people who can look at the Python, but there may also be some usability aspects that would benefit from general, user-perspective discussion. A heavily commented sample extension can be found at https://github.com/frescobaldi-extensions/sample-extension, and at some point there will be a tutorial on that repository's Wiki pages. If my basic approach is accepted by the other developers this will allow the creation of very simple Python packages that can be loaded as extensions in Frescobaldi. They will have access to the whole functionality that is available within Frescobaldi, but of course using this will require the knowledge, so it won't be trivial for everybody to create their own extensions (but it'll be a simpler task than it is now to find *someone* to create extensions, e.g. as a commission). What I've found so far (which was one of the motivations to actually do something) is that Frescobaldi is a perfect environment to place some project management GUIs into, which the extension API will make much simpler. Urs ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Protecting against page breaks in markup
I'm creating an index to my scores, in the form of a sequence of LilyPond markups (for title, composer, first few bars etc). It is working well apart from page breaking which can occur mid-entry. Is there a way of turning page breaks off and back on around each entry? Richard Shann ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple scheme in lilypond
Gianmaria Lari writes: > Probably these are very trivial things. Sorry to ask them but would like to > understand. > > If I write (1): > > > \version "2.19.82" > $(object->string (+ 3 2)) > > > Lilypond is happy and compile to a pdf file showing "5". > > Even this simpler code works... (2) > > \version "2.19.82" > $"Hello" > > > and generate a pdf file showing "Hello". > > It is clear to me that $ introduce a scheme expression that is evaluated. > And in the previous two examples the scheme code is evaluated to strings. > But I don't understand why lilypond outputs them. If I write (3): > > \version "2.19.82" > "Test" blabla = "Test" ##f \blabla will compile again (sorry for the ##f : it is necessary to defeat lookahead). It is indistinguishable from blabla = \markup "Test" ##f \blabla in output and in its effect on the variable. Basically, $x and \x are the same (apart from the characters allowed in and after x). The logical thing would be to permit "Test" on its own but it appears rather error-prone. This is similar to blabla = c4 ##f \blabla compiling and producing a result while c4 on its own doesn't. > I tried to rewrite (1) and (2) with the hash mark instead of dollar (6): > > \version "2.19.82" > #(object->string (+ 3 2)) > > > and (7): > > \version "2.19.82" > #"Hello" > > > This time, there is no output in the pdf file. Why this difference? At the top level of the file, assignments and assignment-like statements may be executed. The return value of an assignment in Scheme is unspecified. There are things like #(set! (hashq-ref x y) z) that somewhat inscrutably return an actual value other than *unspecified*. For that reason, # expressions in contexts where assignments are allowed are evaluated and ignored. Use $ if you want them to be heeded. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: simple scheme in lilypond
Hello,
the $ sign has a special meaning of "instant scheme-expression". An
instant scheme expression is evaluated instantly *and* the result is
observed so that lilypond can decide what to do with it. When lily
receives something that can be treated as a markup from an instant
scheme expression it is handled like \markup {}. But a pure string is
not a core lily-expression like music or markup. Thats the reason (3)
fails with an error. The result of a plain scheme-exression introduced
with # is simply ignored in root context.
HTH
Jan-Peter
Am 27.11.18 um 09:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
> Probably these are very trivial things. Sorry to ask them but would like
> to understand.
>
> If I write (1):
>
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> $(object->string (+ 3 2))
>
>
> Lilypond is happy and compile to a pdf file showing "5".
>
> Even this simpler code works... (2)
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> $"Hello"
>
>
> and generate a pdf file showing "Hello".
>
> It is clear to me that $ introduce a scheme expression that is
> evaluated. And in the previous two examples the scheme code is evaluated
> to strings. But I don't understand why lilypond outputs them. If I write
> (3):
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> "Test"
>
>
> this does not compile. So I would think that the "correct" code to
> output evaluated expression in the pdf file should be (4)
>
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \markup $(object->string (+ 3 2))
>
>
> or this (5)
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> \markup $"Hello"
>
>
> Why the behaviour of (1) and (2) ?
>
> * * *
>
> I tried to rewrite (1) and (2) with the hash mark instead of dollar (6):
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> #(object->string (+ 3 2))
>
>
> and (7):
>
> \version "2.19.82"
> #"Hello"
>
>
> This time, there is no output in the pdf file. Why this difference?
>
> Thank you, g.
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
simple scheme in lilypond
Probably these are very trivial things. Sorry to ask them but would like to understand. If I write (1): \version "2.19.82" $(object->string (+ 3 2)) Lilypond is happy and compile to a pdf file showing "5". Even this simpler code works... (2) \version "2.19.82" $"Hello" and generate a pdf file showing "Hello". It is clear to me that $ introduce a scheme expression that is evaluated. And in the previous two examples the scheme code is evaluated to strings. But I don't understand why lilypond outputs them. If I write (3): \version "2.19.82" "Test" this does not compile. So I would think that the "correct" code to output evaluated expression in the pdf file should be (4) \version "2.19.82" \markup $(object->string (+ 3 2)) or this (5) \version "2.19.82" \markup $"Hello" Why the behaviour of (1) and (2) ? * * * I tried to rewrite (1) and (2) with the hash mark instead of dollar (6): \version "2.19.82" #(object->string (+ 3 2)) and (7): \version "2.19.82" #"Hello" This time, there is no output in the pdf file. Why this difference? Thank you, g. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
