Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for
modifications to note lengths (i.e. swing) in the MIDI without
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic framework that allows for
modifications to note
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:59 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com
mailto:m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com
Am 31.01.2012 09:28, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 08:52, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
On Jan 31, 2012, at 8:48 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 29.01.2012 10:35, schrieb mts...@gmail.com:
Reviewers: ,
Message:
The idea here is to create a generic
On Jan 31, 2012, at 10:44 AM, Marc Hohl wrote:
I tried to write such stuff long ago, but I was told that it is not possible
to
get the informations about beats and measures within such a scheme function.
Mike's proposal opened a way to get exactly this information.
Marc,
I write code
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
Check out:
http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly
This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one
swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for layout and midi.
Then, in the two scores,
Am 31.01.2012 10:57, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 31.01.2012 09:09, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
Check out:
http://crism.maden.org/music/swing.ly
This is a function that takes music and returns two musics, one
swung and one unswung, w/ appropriate tags for
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
\midi { \makeSwingFormatter \music }
I tried to write such stuff long ago, but I was told that it is not
possible to get the informations about beats and measures within such
a scheme function.
If it were not possible, then LilyPond could not generate this
Am 31.01.2012 10:56, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
[...]
I wrote my own set of Scheme functions based on this method that got all the
swing I needed into a score.
Would you mind to post these functions?
I am currently working on a project that needs swing articulation, so I
would be glad to
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Ok, now I understand - thanks for pointing this out.
And it is not about swing alone, see:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=687
You are confusing the quality of one implementation with the qualities
of the approach as such.
Probably.
I
OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the
patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only
appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256.
Any idea why it's testing 2263 instead?
Also, FWIW, I've taken the email
hello,
On 31 January 2012 11:39, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests the
patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However, there only
appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's fix for 2256.
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests
the patch associated with issue 2263 (and tests clean). However,
there only appears to be a single patch in staging, and that's Carl's
fix for 2256. Any idea why it's testing 2263
- Original Message -
From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: New Patchy thread
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
OK - I've now successfully run test-patches. It downloads and tests
the patch associated
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:03:17PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: New Patchy thread
Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net writes:
OK - I've now
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
OK - so I really need to ensure that I can run
lilypond-patchy-staging.py?
Yes. It should be completely automatic and painless, once you
have your ~/.lilypnod-patchy-config the
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
To: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: New Patchy thread
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37:33PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
I assume I need to do something to update my git repo. However,
it's vanilla and created using lily-git, so we would need
instructions on how to do this anyway. Anyone know what's needed?
I'll bet you a tenner that you used the OLD
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:42 PM
Subject: Re: New Patchy thread
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:37:33PM -, Phil Holmes
The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to
use clone:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up
but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the old
git remote add... stuff to only get specific branches?
If I understand git correctly,
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to
use clone:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up
but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the old
git remote add... stuff to only
2012/1/31 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
I can't imagine _any_ situation where this behavior would make sense.
+1
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
The updated CG instructions for setting up git manually specify to
use clone:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/contributor/setting-up
but the latest patch for lily-git.tcl still appears to use the
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
4) try again?
- Graham
Soon.
There you go. That seemed to work.
I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily?
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
There you go. That seemed to work.
Yep, looks good.
I assume all I need to do is run patchy-staging daily?
Yes and no. Running it daily would be great. Running it every 12
hours might be nicer, although maybe you could alternate
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining the
drawbacks of implicit contexts for some years now.
I
- Original Message -
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject: Re: New Patchy thread
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 01:47:52PM -, Phil Holmes
Hello,
On 31 January 2012 14:05, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Graham Percival
gra...@percival-music.ca
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: David Kastrup d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1:56 PM
Subject:
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of
- Original Message -
From: James pkx1...@gmail.com
Well once I get some nice 1, 2, 3 instructions I can run patchy 24/7.
Will do. It's actually pretty simple.
I've had to refocus on outstanding Doc tracker issues and Patchy seems
to have moved on since two weeks back.
Frankly I
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:47 PM
What would you expect the following to do?
\new StaffGroup { \relative c' { \relative c' { c2 } c } }
It does pretty much what I expected, but then I have been explaining
the drawbacks of
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up in _two_ different voices?
If
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since nested instances of @code{\relative} don't affect
Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why would you want to have the above end up
Eluze wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:58 PM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 2:31 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
No, me neither, but leaving Voice contexts to be implied usually works
well, eg with Staff rather than StaffGroup.
Why
For 20:00-ish MST Thursday, February 2nd, 2012
Defect:
Issue 2263
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2263: Reimplement
chord repetition (Issue 1110
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1110: Wrong octave
of repetition chord with \relative and #{ #} syntax) -
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, January 31, 2012 10:13 PM
Any suggestion of how to do the documentation part of issue 2263
differently? That \new Voice sticks out like a wart.
From Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (as proposed):
Since
40 matches
Mail list logo
