On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila paconet@gmail.com
wrote:
2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for
algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating Lily code.
Another advantage is code
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1774
mf/feta-scripts.mf:1774: set_char_box (0, 1.7 staff_space# + epsilon,
I suggest to use a tightest bounding box. At
Am 26.09.2012 14:45, schrieb Thomas Morley:
[...]
Hi Marc,
an idea, don't know if it's really helpful:
From 2.16.0-bar-line.scm, bar-glyph-alist:
The old definition of bar empty was: (empty . (() . ()))
The old definition of bar was: ( . ( . ))
With regard to that, I have to make a
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 26.09.2012 14:45, schrieb Thomas Morley:
[...]
Hi Marc,
an idea, don't know if it's really helpful:
From 2.16.0-bar-line.scm, bar-glyph-alist:
The old definition of bar empty was: (empty . (() . ()))
The old definition of bar was: ( . ( . ))
With
On 09/27/2012 08:36 AM, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
A typical example of this is NoteCollision of N NoteColumns. The
NoteColumns have to all move in a coordinated way, and the easiest way
is to have a function (with local variables) that determines what has
to happen. You might get
Am 27.09.2012 09:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 26.09.2012 14:45, schrieb Thomas Morley:
[...]
Hi Marc,
an idea, don't know if it's really helpful:
From 2.16.0-bar-line.scm, bar-glyph-alist:
The old definition of bar empty was: (empty . (() . ()))
The old
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:51:43 -0700, Francisco Vila
paconet@gmail.com wrote:
2012/9/24 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
Seriously though, i think this syntax would be very useful for
algorithmic composers and computer programs manipulating
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 27.09.2012 09:10, schrieb David Kastrup:
or finally defining an empty stencil glyph:
\defineBarLine | | x |
(note that is not the same as x, as Harm explained; draws a
stencil with
zero width, X would draw *no* stencil at all).
What do we need a
Mats Bengtsson mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se writes:
On 09/27/2012 08:36 AM, lilypond-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
A typical example of this is NoteCollision of N NoteColumns. The
NoteColumns have to all move in a coordinated way, and the easiest way
is to have a function (with local variables)
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote:
I have to make a distinction between
and '() in the new bar line interface.
What do you think would be better: using a symbol instead of '(),
so one can write
\defineBarLine | | 'none |
or using #f instead:
A new patch has been uploaded to a new issue,
number 6567059, as I do not own this one.
Werner: could you close this issue please.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6529043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/1/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1774
mf/feta-scripts.mf:1774: set_char_box (0, 1.7 staff_space# + epsilon,
Are you suggesting deleting the epsilon, or moving
2012/9/27 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote:
I have to make a distinction between
and '() in the new bar line interface.
What do you think would be better: using a symbol instead of '(),
so one can write
\defineBarLine
Hi,
thanks for including me in reviewers, Phil - i would probably miss it
otherwise.
The shape is ok. Personally i would make the right arm a tad thicker
and a bit less curved, but that's only my opinion.
As for the bounding box, i definitely think that it should be moved,
both horizontally
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
2012/9/27 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
What do we need a zero width stencil for?
Silly answer, to get the regtests correct. :)
More serious, a zero width stencil will be considered during spacing.
Yes, but what do we need that for?
Look
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
But I don't think we advertise \bar for anything except introducing
optional breakpoints in the middle of a bar. Why would we want
additional space then? The spacing of an optional breakpoint should not
be different from
- Original Message -
From: janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
To: philehol...@googlemail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com;
gra...@percival-music.ca; d...@gnu.org
Cc: re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: Adds tick mark to
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:30 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
But I don't think we advertise \bar for anything except introducing
optional breakpoints in the middle of a bar. Why would we want
additional space then? The spacing of an
Well, music argument after left-out optional argument at the current
point of time means closed music. It is likely a safe bet that we
rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem,
and I am chugging away at getting the closed music thing scrapped, but
that's still a
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
Well, music argument after left-out optional argument at the current
point of time means closed music. It is likely a safe bet that we
rarely need a single note for a tuplet, so it is not much of a problem,
and I am chugging away at getting the closed
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:43 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
But why would we want it when writing \break? Where is the point in
fixing a problem by making a loosely related command act as a
workaround?
Do you mean we shouldn't need to write \bar to have \break work
anywhere we want?
Please don't use `epsilon' in set_char_box. I think the problem is that
you `sharpen' a coordinate distance by doing `define_pixels (y_off)',
however, only `black distances' (to use the TrueType vocabulary) like
vertical or horizontal stem widths should be handled like that.
In general, I would
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 5:43 PM, m...@mikesolomon.org
m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
OK - I'll be able to fix all the broken stuff on Monday or Tuesday.
Whoah, this was pushed and i didn't notice anything... and
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
Horizontally, i would align the center of the bounding box to the dip
point. This would allow visual centering of the glyph on something.
Can do. This would imply that there's empty space on the left of the glyph.
Is
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net wrote:
On 26/09/12 09:19, Janek Warchoł wrote:
This is a good idea in itself, but i'm afraid we'll drown in the flood
of suggestions if we ask this question now. Currently we want to
focus on syntax alone.
On 27/09/12 16:44, Janek Warchoł wrote:
oh yes, that's on my list of difficult to express things for more
than a year.
Reading Keith Stone's contemporary music examples, you'll see there's a similar
issue for glissandi with a terminating pitch ... :-)
Hi Joseph,
On 25/09/12 16:43, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
That's not entirely true. Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough
On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote:
PAH!
I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast
If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond are
mightily impressive. :-)
... but for the problem at hand -- in the scores I've seen, he doesn't use the
complex nested tuplets
On 27/09/12 19:15, Ian Hulin wrote:
It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread
base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three
type duplets. This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid
values for durations, and we've strayed into
On 27 sept. 2012, at 13:56, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 5:43 PM, m...@mikesolomon.org
m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
OK - I'll be able to fix all the broken stuff on Monday
On 27/09/12 21:06, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
From my Suite Post Algorithmica.
I stand corrected, and rather amused :-)
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
21:58:01 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
9de1c7467d9fceec1150156236b50bd7c668185a
21:58:23 Merged staging, now at:9de1c7467d9fceec1150156236b50bd7c668185a
21:58:27Success:sudo -u lilybuild ./autogen.sh
--noconfigure
21:59:05Success:
Apart from a typo in changes.tely (q.v.), LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode67
Documentation/changes.tely:67: as
One tiny addition:
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/scm/bar-line.scm
File scm/bar-line.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/scm/bar-line.scm#newcode1053
scm/bar-line.scm:1053: (define-bar-line :|] :|] #f |)
When we provide a bracket-repeat-sign for
For 20:00 MDT (later if there's a Gospel Hymn Sing!) Sunday September 30
Enhancement:
Issue 2717
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2717: Implement
\single for converting overrides to tweaks - R 6495135
http://codereview.appspot.com/6495135/
Issue 2859
i don't feel competent to speak about scheme code, but the idea LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6495135/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Thursday, September 27, 2012, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
On 27 sept. 2012, at 13:56, Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
wrote:
Um, Mike, i've just checked and current master has many cases of bad
accidental placement - many accidentals are too close to each other.
For example, es'
sorry to join the discussion so late...
what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g.
\new Voice \with { \no StringNumber }
As for the code, it LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6575048/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Reviewers: janek,
Message:
On 2012/09/28 05:18:42, janek wrote:
sorry to join the discussion so late...
what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g.
\new Voice \with { \no StringNumber }
As for the code, it LGTM.
It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
There were three patchsets (maybe more). If it looks catastrophic,
I trust you - just revert it in staging and send me a short
example w/ the regression and I'll work on it.
It looks to me that this patch is way past staging, so i'm
40 matches
Mail list logo
