RE: metronome-mark-alignment
> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Morley [mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2020 6:04 PM > To: Daniel Rosen > Cc: David Nalesnik ; lilypond-user Mailing List > (lilypond-user@gnu.org) > Subject: Re: metronome-mark-alignment > > Though, I've already heard about difficulties about using scheme to write > own extension pretty often. > Just like you say: > > Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 22:19 Uhr schrieb Daniel Rosen > : > > I want to express how grateful I am to this list for being so helpful > > with this issue, since I have zero knowledge about how to use Scheme. > > (I've tried to tackle the Extending manual on multiple occasions, but > > I find it extremely difficult to understand, probably because I have > > no programming experience.) > > I have the suspicion it's not, because guile is difficult, at least so far as > the > scheme-tutorial reaches out, but because it's difficult to find a way to > modify > LilyPond's default with scheme. In the sense of: > What am I supposed to do with my new basic guile-knowledge? > Note that most used tools in David's and my coding are _not_ native guile- > procedures, but are defined in the LilyPond-source. > Therefore I think the problem is more poor documentation of those lily- > defined tools and/or the lack of commented code-examples using them. > > Could you confirm or is it something else preventing you from starting to > code on your own? The most important thing preventing me from starting to code on my own is simple: I don't have to. LilyPond natively supports so many different notational constructs that I run into problems relatively infrequently. And in the cases when I do, between the manuals, the LSR, and this list (primarily the archives, and occasionally responses to my own submissions), I've been able to simply copy-paste my way out of practically any jam I've found myself in for as long as I've used LilyPond (which must be almost ten years). As far as the Extending manual goes, though... I could be wrong, but it seems to assume a basic working knowledge of how computer programs and programming languages work that I simply don't have. Going through it, I think to myself that I would need to have one-on-one tutoring sessions with someone in order to really understand it. Take 1.2.1 (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/extending/lilypond-scheme-syntax) as an example. This paragraph > The hash mark # method of embedding Scheme is a natural fit for this system. > Once the lexer sees a hash mark, it calls the Scheme reader to read one full > Scheme > expression (this can be an identifier, an expression enclosed in parentheses, > or several > other things). After the Scheme expression is read, it is stored away as the > value for an > SCM_TOKEN in the grammar. Once the parser knows how to make use of this > token, it > calls Guile for evaluating the Scheme expression. Since the parser usually > requires a bit > of lookahead from the lexer to make its parsing decisions, this separation of > reading > and evaluation between lexer and parser is exactly what is needed to keep the > execution of LilyPond and Scheme expressions in sync. For this reason, you > should use > the hash mark # for calling Scheme whenever this is feasible. mostly goes over my head. I like to think I understand the basic idea, but I can never be sure because I'm unfamiliar with so much of the language: "lexer," "Scheme reader," "SCM_TOKEN," "parser." And the rest of the page is no better. So while I'm sure that you're right about the manual's ineffectiveness in helping readers transfer their knowledge of Guile into practice within LilyPond, in my case the issue lies even deeper than that---I'm never sure whether I'm really understanding what the manual is trying to tell me. Of course, it may be that the manual isn't meant to be aimed at a complete novice like myself; but if it is, then it definitely needs an overhaul. DR
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
From: Paolo Prete Date: Sunday, January 12, 2020 at 7:31 PM To: Aaron Hill Cc: lilypond-user Subject: Re: Shift up OttavaBracket As said in the first post staff-padding seems to have the same problem of Y-offset: http://lilybin.com/njdr3x/1 outside-staff-padding does the job only if reset; see: http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/4 Then I would consider this a bug. At least one property of OttavaBracket should behave like extra-offset concerning the starting offset. I disagree with this statement. You are trying to mix automatic placement with manual placement, but then get the benefits of manual placement. This is inconsistent with the basic design of LilyPond. Notes we can offset, because they have standard positions determined based on their pitches and their rhythmic position. The other items move to avoid collisions based on penalties. This is the fundamental operation mode of lilypond. It appears that what you are asking is to calculate a position based on penalties, then add an offset, then run through the collision-avoidance algorithm again, which will then move things around based on penalties. Then you need to add an offset again from the automatically-calculated position, and you end up with an infinite loop. Extra-offset is provided to allow you to specify an exact amount of shift. But when you do so, you are responsible for managing collisions. If you want to move things around during automatic placement, the appropriate lilypond way to do it is to change the parameters that lead to spacing (e.g. padding, priority, etc.). But you still get the automatic placement. I think you are trying to misuse LilyPond, and I don’t agree that it should be rewritten to support manual placement. But I would not object to somebody allowing such functionality, as long as it didn’t break the existing functionality. IMO, the reason I use and contribute to LilyPond is because it does such a good job of handling things automatically. Thanks, Carl
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Hi Kieren, look at my last post. Repositioning the OttavaBracket requires an unknown offset. best, Paolo On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:26 AM kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan < kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > > Unfortunately, with extra-offset I have the disadvantage that all the > other > > objects are not moved automatically (smart repositioning) > > Do you want to increase padding? > e.g., http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/4 > > > Does my example show a bug/missing feature for OttavaBracket? > > To be honest, it’s not 100% clear to me what you want. > Can you be more specific what’s not working and exactly what you expect to > happen? > > Thanks, > Kieren. >
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
> > > > outside-staff-padding does the job only if reset; see: > > http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/4 > > > Wrong link. Look at: >> > http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/5
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
As said in the first post staff-padding seems to have the same problem of Y-offset: http://lilybin.com/njdr3x/1 outside-staff-padding does the job only if reset; see: http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/4 Then I would consider this a bug. At least one property of OttavaBracket should behave like extra-offset concerning the starting offset. Best, Paolo On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 2:31 AM Aaron Hill wrote: > On 2020-01-12 5:17 pm, Paolo Prete wrote: > > Unfortunately, with extra-offset I have the disadvantage that all the > > other > > objects are not moved automatically (smart repositioning) > > True, extra-offset is the tool for making changes to the layout after > everything else has been done. It sounded like that was what you were > asking about. > > > Does my example show a bug/missing feature for OttavaBracket? > > Not that I can see. But it seems like Y-offset might not be the right > thing to adjust. Perhaps staff-padding or outside-staff-padding are > better options. > > > -- Aaron Hill > >
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
On 2020-01-12 5:17 pm, Paolo Prete wrote: Unfortunately, with extra-offset I have the disadvantage that all the other objects are not moved automatically (smart repositioning) True, extra-offset is the tool for making changes to the layout after everything else has been done. It sounded like that was what you were asking about. Does my example show a bug/missing feature for OttavaBracket? Not that I can see. But it seems like Y-offset might not be the right thing to adjust. Perhaps staff-padding or outside-staff-padding are better options. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Hi Paolo, > Unfortunately, with extra-offset I have the disadvantage that all the other > objects are not moved automatically (smart repositioning) Do you want to increase padding? e.g., http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/4 > Does my example show a bug/missing feature for OttavaBracket? To be honest, it’s not 100% clear to me what you want. Can you be more specific what’s not working and exactly what you expect to happen? Thanks, Kieren.
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Unfortunately, with extra-offset I have the disadvantage that all the other
objects are not moved automatically (smart repositioning)
Does my example show a bug/missing feature for OttavaBracket?
Thanks,
Paolo
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 1:56 AM Aaron Hill wrote:
> If you want to move the bracket upwards based on its final position
> after accounting for other objects such as the slur, then extra-offset
> seems the way to go.
>
> Otherwise, you can manually do the work that \offset Y-offset would have
> done if you need to use 2.18.2.
>
>
> \version "2.18.2"
> test = { \ottava #1 c c c \ottava #0 c'''
> \ottava #1 c( c c \ottava #0 c''') }
> {
>\test
>
>% \offset Y-offset 2 Staff.OttavaBracket
>\override Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset =
> #(let ((offset (lambda (n) (+ 2 n
> (ly:make-unpure-pure-container
> (lambda (grob) (offset
> (ly:side-position-interface::y-aligned-side grob)))
> (lambda (grob start end) (offset
> (ly:side-position-interface::pure-y-aligned-side
>grob start end)
>\test
>\revert Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset
>
>\override Staff.OttavaBracket.extra-offset = #'(0 . 2)
>\test
> }
>
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
>
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
If you want to move the bracket upwards based on its final position
after accounting for other objects such as the slur, then extra-offset
seems the way to go.
Otherwise, you can manually do the work that \offset Y-offset would have
done if you need to use 2.18.2.
\version "2.18.2"
test = { \ottava #1 c c c \ottava #0 c'''
\ottava #1 c( c c \ottava #0 c''') }
{
\test
% \offset Y-offset 2 Staff.OttavaBracket
\override Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset =
#(let ((offset (lambda (n) (+ 2 n
(ly:make-unpure-pure-container
(lambda (grob) (offset
(ly:side-position-interface::y-aligned-side grob)))
(lambda (grob start end) (offset
(ly:side-position-interface::pure-y-aligned-side
grob start end)
\test
\revert Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset
\override Staff.OttavaBracket.extra-offset = #'(0 . 2)
\test
}
-- Aaron Hill
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Thanks David, just tested that even with unstable it has some issues http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/3 Is there a fix for this? (I suppose that it could be fixed with outside-staff-priority, but I wonder if is there a better fix) On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:34 AM David Nalesnik wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:27 PM Paolo Prete wrote: > > > > Try this with both stable and unstable > > > > http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/1 > > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:20 AM David Nalesnik < > david.nales...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:13 PM Paolo Prete > wrote: > >> > > >> > Thanks very much David. > >> > Just tested and it works with 2.19 (not with 2.18, though) > >> > > >> > >> What did you write and what was the log output? > > The reason is that \offset couldn't handle pure-unpure containers back > in 2.18 days. OttavaBracket.Y-offset defaults to > # ly:side-position-interface::y-aligned-side> # ly:side-position-interface::pure-y-aligned-side> >. I have no > solution for this if you are trying to support 2.18. > > Best, > David >
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Hi Paolo, On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:27 PM Paolo Prete wrote: > > Try this with both stable and unstable > > http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/1 > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:20 AM David Nalesnik > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:13 PM Paolo Prete wrote: >> > >> > Thanks very much David. >> > Just tested and it works with 2.19 (not with 2.18, though) >> > >> >> What did you write and what was the log output? The reason is that \offset couldn't handle pure-unpure containers back in 2.18 days. OttavaBracket.Y-offset defaults to # # >. I have no solution for this if you are trying to support 2.18. Best, David
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Try this with both stable and unstable http://lilybin.com/yb5u35/1 On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:20 AM David Nalesnik wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:13 PM Paolo Prete wrote: > > > > Thanks very much David. > > Just tested and it works with 2.19 (not with 2.18, though) > > > > What did you write and what was the log output? >
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 5:13 PM Paolo Prete wrote: > > Thanks very much David. > Just tested and it works with 2.19 (not with 2.18, though) > What did you write and what was the log output?
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
Thanks very much David.
Just tested and it works with 2.19 (not with 2.18, though)
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06 AM David Nalesnik
wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 4:54 PM Paolo Prete wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > Please consider this example:
> >
> > {{ \ottava #1 c c c c \ottava #0 }}
> >
> > How can I shift up the ottava bracket exactly TWO staff spaces above its
> calculated position?
> >
> > Both:
> > \override Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset = ... and \override
> Staff.OttavaBracket.staff-padding = ... don't seem to be the right way to
> achieve this
> >
> > Should I use some spanner, like I can do with dynamics?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > P
>
> Try \offset:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/the-offset-command.
>
> -David
>
Re: Shift up OttavaBracket
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 4:54 PM Paolo Prete wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> Please consider this example:
>
> {{ \ottava #1 c c c c \ottava #0 }}
>
> How can I shift up the ottava bracket exactly TWO staff spaces above its
> calculated position?
>
> Both:
> \override Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset = ... and \override
> Staff.OttavaBracket.staff-padding = ... don't seem to be the right way to
> achieve this
>
> Should I use some spanner, like I can do with dynamics?
>
> Thanks,
> P
Try \offset:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/the-offset-command.
-David
Re: metronome-mark-alignment
Hi Daniel, you may have heard there's a conference soon in Salzburg. I will have a talk there as well, thus I doubt I can't look into the problem you've reported before I'm back. Nevertheless in alzburg I'll talk about user-defined extensions for LilyPond. During the talk I'll frequently recommend reading the Extending Manual to get basic knowledge about scheme/guile. Though, I've already heard about difficulties about using scheme to write own extension pretty often. Just like you say: Am So., 12. Jan. 2020 um 22:19 Uhr schrieb Daniel Rosen : > I want to express how grateful I am to this list for being so helpful with > this issue, since I have zero knowledge about how to use Scheme. (I've tried > to tackle the Extending manual on multiple occasions, but I find it extremely > difficult to understand, probably because I have no programming experience.) I have the suspicion it's not, because guile is difficult, at least so far as the scheme-tutorial reaches out, but because it's difficult to find a way to modify LilyPond's default with scheme. In the sense of: What am I supposed to do with my new basic guile-knowledge? Note that most used tools in David's and my coding are _not_ native guile-procedures, but are defined in the LilyPond-source. Therefore I think the problem is more poor documentation of those lily-defined tools and/or the lack of commented code-examples using them. Could you confirm or is it something else preventing you from starting to code on your own? Btw, before I started using LilyPond I had no programming experience as well ;) Best, Harm
Shift up OttavaBracket
Hello.
Please consider this example:
{{ \ottava #1 c c c c \ottava #0 }}
How can I shift up the ottava bracket exactly TWO staff spaces above its
calculated position?
Both:
\override Staff.OttavaBracket.Y-offset = ... and \override
Staff.OttavaBracket.staff-padding = ... don't seem to be the right way to
achieve this
Should I use some spanner, like I can do with dynamics?
Thanks,
P
Re: Tuplet number collision when slurred
Not exactly what you asked for, but I think this looks better and is
less confusing:
{\clef alto \tupletDown \tuplet 3/2 {a8-3( g-2 f-1)}}
---
Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)
On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 9:14 AM Jean-Julien Fleck
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've got into a strange behavior of a \tuplet that can be seen with this code:
>
> {\clef alto \tuplet 3/2 {a8-3( g-2 f-1)}}
>
> to be compared with the same without the slur
>
> {\clef alto \tuplet 3/2 {a8-3 g-2 f-1}}
>
> for which there is no collision between fingering and tuplet number.
>
> In my little piece, I will just use \once\omit TupletNumber and I would be
> done, but I think it could be a bug some would like to investigate (even if
> it seems quite rare to occur).
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> JJ Fleck
> Physique et Informatique
> PCSI1 Lycée Kléber
RE: metronome-mark-alignment
> -Original Message- > From: Thomas Morley [mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 5:37 PM > To: David Nalesnik > Cc: Daniel Rosen ; lilypond-user Mailing List (lilypond- > u...@gnu.org) > Subject: Re: metronome-mark-alignment > > Am Sa., 11. Jan. 2020 um 18:04 Uhr schrieb David Nalesnik > : > > > > Sorry, no time at the moment. Perhaps someone else can help... > > Probably: This works great. I want to express how grateful I am to this list for being so helpful with this issue, since I have zero knowledge about how to use Scheme. (I've tried to tackle the Extending manual on multiple occasions, but I find it extremely difficult to understand, probably because I have no programming experience.) That said... there's still one more problem. When Metronome_mark_engraver is part of a Score or Staff context, MetronomeMarks that coincide with TimeSignatures align by default to the TimeSignature. However, I have a couple of Dynamics contexts in my score so that I can have MetronomeMarks centered between staves; in those contexts, with David/Harm's function applied, MetronomeMarks that coincide with TimeSignatures align to the accidental. How can I have it behave the same way as in a Staff context? Tiny example attached. Thanks, DR mwe.ly Description: mwe.ly
Re: Poster for music engraving conference
Hello Jacques, > I’m no graphics specialist, but maybe inserting the attached image into the > poster would make the role of Frescobaldi even clearer? At the very least, we should dedicate some portion of this week’s conference to rigorous testing of what’s represented in the image… ;) Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
Tuplet number collision when slurred
Hello,
I've got into a strange behavior of a \tuplet that can be seen with this
code:
{\clef alto \tuplet 3/2 {a8-3( g-2 f-1)}}
to be compared with the same without the slur
{\clef alto \tuplet 3/2 {a8-3 g-2 f-1}}
for which there is no collision between fingering and tuplet number.
In my little piece, I will just use \once\omit TupletNumber and I would be
done, but I think it could be a bug some would like to investigate (even if
it seems quite rare to occur).
Cheers,
--
JJ Fleck
Physique et Informatique
PCSI1 Lycée Kléber
Re: Help posting to lilypond-devel
My message finally did go through after a while longer, so all is now well. Apologies for the the noise.
Re: Ambrosian Chant Notation
> > I'm still trying to figure out how to create a custom notehead
> > (extended black rectangle)
>
> Something like this might be a good place to start:
>
>
> \version "2.18.2"
> {
>\tweak Stem.transparent ##t
>\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)
> (grob-interpret-markup grob #{
>\markup \filled-box #'(0 . 4) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.1 #}))
>b'
> }
>
Neat one :)
I don't think slurs should be used in chants. To solve a similar problem quite
a while ago Thomas Morley kindly wrote a function that does that. Including
Aaron's code here is another take:
\version "2.19.83"
\include "gregorian.ly"
\include "lilypond-book-preamble.ly"
offsetChord =
#(define-music-function (music)(ly:music?)
"Return an event-chord with offsetted NoteHeads.
Articulations are printed with respect to their corresponding NoteHeads "
(let* ((ev-notes (event-chord-notes music)))
(make-event-chord
(map
(lambda (ecn which val)
(let ((arts (ly:music-property ecn 'articulations)))
;; set 'articulations of 'NoteEvent
(ly:music-set-property! ecn 'articulations
(if (not (null? arts))
(map
(lambda (a)
;; set a new parent for 'ArticulationEvent
(if (music-is-of-type? a 'articulation-event)
#{
\tweak after-line-breaking
#(lambda (grob)
(let* ((note-head (ly:grob-parent grob X))
(nc (ly:grob-parent note-head X))
(nh
(ly:grob-array->list
(ly:grob-object nc 'note-heads
(set!
(ly:grob-parent grob X)
(list-ref nh which
$a
#}
a))
arts)
'()))
;; apply 'X-offset-tweak to every NoteHead
#{ \tweak X-offset $val $ecn #}))
ev-notes
(iota (length ev-notes))
(iota (length ev-notes) 0 1.48)
chant = \relative c' {
\set Score.timing = ##f
c'4 a2 %\tweak Stem.transparent ##t
\tweak stencil #(lambda (grob)
(grob-interpret-markup grob #{
\markup \filled-box #'(0 . 4) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.1 #})) b
\divisioMinima
g4 a c2 a2 \divisioMaior
\offsetChord { a4 g } \offsetChord { g4 a } a2 \finalis
}
verba = \lyricmode {
O God, \once \override LyricText.self-alignment-X = #-1 "help us in our time
of need."
God have mer -- cy,
Grant us peace.
}
\score {
\new Staff <<
\override Staff.StaffSymbol.line-count = #2
\new Voice = "melody" \chant
\new Lyrics = "one" \lyricsto melody \verba
>>
\layout {
\context {
\Staff
\remove "Time_signature_engraver"
\remove "Bar_engraver"
\hide Stem
}
\context {
\Voice
\override Stem.length = #0
}
\context {
\Score
barAlways = ##t
}
}
}
I've also stopped using the gregorian.ly because too many (for my liking)
things get switched off. I use a private version that only includes some of the
attributes of gregorian.ly. But that is probably a matter of persona taste.
and instead
Kind regards,
Michael
--
Michael Gerdau email: m...@qata.de
GPG-keys available on request or at public keyserver
Re: Poster for music engraving conference
Am 12. Januar 2020 12:43:04 MEZ schrieb Klaus Blum : >Hi Urs, hi Jan-Peter, > >thanks for your feedback. > >Am 12.01.2020 um 09:59 schrieb Urs Liska: >> I can't really imagine how the font sizes will turn out on a real A0 >> poster, but I assume you have thought about that (or used tested >> templates). > >Honestly, I have no experience about that. I blindly trusted the >template that Urs has chosen: >https://www.latextemplates.com/template/a0poster-landscape-poster >The font size for the normal text turned out to be about 24 pt, that's >what I used as well. > >I've just made a quick test: At a distance of 2 meters, I can clearly >read it. With 3 meters, it's still possible but less comfortable. >Should we go for even bigger font size? I don't think so, thanks for checking. The typical reading distance would be about 1-2 m at most, actually I'd say an arm's length. Urs > >Cheers, >Klaus -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: Poster for music engraving conference
Hi Urs, hi Jan-Peter, thanks for your feedback. Am 12.01.2020 um 09:59 schrieb Urs Liska: I can't really imagine how the font sizes will turn out on a real A0 poster, but I assume you have thought about that (or used tested templates). Honestly, I have no experience about that. I blindly trusted the template that Urs has chosen: https://www.latextemplates.com/template/a0poster-landscape-poster The font size for the normal text turned out to be about 24 pt, that's what I used as well. I've just made a quick test: At a distance of 2 meters, I can clearly read it. With 3 meters, it's still possible but less comfortable. Should we go for even bigger font size? Cheers, Klaus
Help posting to lilypond-devel
Hello, I tried posting (a new thread) to the lilypond-devel list a couple of hours ago, but it doesn't seem to have got through; at least my message is not showing up in the archives. I'm already subscribed to the list - is there something else I should be doing? Thanks, David
Re: Poster for music engraving conference
Hi Klaus, this poster looks appealing and complete. The only comment I'd like to give is what Urs already mentioned. Du you think the font-sizes are big enough for A0 paper? Jan-Peter Am 12.01.20 um 00:54 schrieb Klaus Blum: > Hi Jan-Peter, hi Werner, > > in cooperation with Urs Liska and Joram Berger, I have made a Poster > about integrating LilyPond fragments into LibreOffice documents > (OOoLilyPond / OLy) and into Wikipedia articles (MediaWiki). > If anyone has suggestions what could be improved, I'm still open for > anything. > Especially for the MediaWiki part, I'm still unsure when to talk about > the website "Wikipedia" or the software "Wikimedia" or the format > "Wikitext" to be most comprehensible... > > Cheers, > Klaus > > >
Re: Frescobaldi Music View
Hi Guy, thanks for reporting, registered as https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/1247 The music view has undergone *substantial* modifications, actually Wilbert has completely rewritten the code, which already shows great improvements in functionality and carries even further potential for future development. Obviously there has been a minor glitch regarding the preference handling. Urs Am Samstag, den 11.01.2020, 22:53 -0600 schrieb Guy Stalnaker: > Howdy Frescobaldi users -- after a recent update to v3 and v3.1, the > music view now defaults to 100%. It did not use to do this. Everytime > I open a score, I now have to set the view to Page or Width, etc. I > cannot find a Configuration option to tell Music View my preferred > view (Page). > > Am I missing something? > > Thanks.
Re: Poster for music engraving conference
Hi Klaus, Am Sonntag, den 12.01.2020, 00:54 +0100 schrieb Klaus Blum: > Hi Jan-Peter, hi Werner, > > in cooperation with Urs Liska and Joram Berger, Really? I can't recall any substantial contributions to that > I have made a Poster > about integrating LilyPond fragments into LibreOffice documents > (OOoLilyPond / OLy) and into Wikipedia articles (MediaWiki). Thank you very much, looks great and useful for the purpose! > If anyone has suggestions what could be improved, I'm still open for > anything. I can't really imagine how the font sizes will turn out on a real A0 poster, but I assume you have thought about that (or used tested templates). Regarding the content I think it makes the point really well, giving the right amount or *relevant* information in suitable and understandable manner. > Especially for the MediaWiki part, I'm still unsure when to talk > about > the website "Wikipedia" or the software "Wikimedia" or the format > "Wikitext" to be most comprehensible... > I can't comment on the wording part, but also in this column I think the point is well made. Best Urs > Cheers, > Klaus > > >
