Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 10/02/2017 04:47, Thomas Richter wrote: > I wrote an extension for 72ET "Ekmelily": > http://www.ekmelic-music.org/en/extra/ekmelily.htm > It uses by default ins own font (Ekmelos) but it should work with e.g. > Bravura, too. > Thanks, Thomas. It looks like excellent work. It should be

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:58, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:24, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:39, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:24, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:39, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: > enthused. Why

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Am 09.02.2017 um 20:18 schrieb Bernardo Barros: Hello, Quarter-tones (24ET) work very well and use the most used symbols. Is there any implementation of eighth-tone (48ET) with arrows for the 8th-tone alterations, or even better, 72ET? I know "makam.ly" could be a good start, I'm just

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:24, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:39, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: enthused. Why wouldn't we want to have best practices pointed out

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 10:22, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:35, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:16, David Kastrup

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 04:20, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > On 09/02/2017 17:22, Hans Åberg wrote: > >> 1. >> https://secure2.storegate.com/Shares/Home.aspx?ShareID=35e0b920-6910-4e4f-8340-7d8290115dda > thank you! Let me know if it works!

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:34, Urs Liska wrote: > > Am 10.02.2017 um 00:22 schrieb Hans Åberg: >>> So is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to a >>> newer version? >>> >> For libraries, you would want to keep track of the changes, but running >>

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:39, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: >> >> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >>> enthused. Why wouldn't we want to have best practices pointed out and >>> promoted on the user list? >> >> Best practices do not include

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:55, Simon Albrecht wrote: > > On 10.02.2017 00:19, Hans Åberg wrote: >> If LilyPond knows how to run the code via convert-ly, why does it not do it? > > LilyPond itself doesn’t change the code it is reading. convert-ly is a > separate Python

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:35, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:16, David Kastrup wrote: So is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:39, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >> enthused. Why wouldn't we want to have best practices pointed out and >> promoted on the user list? > > Best practices do not include attacking other list users. It is the human

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:35, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:16, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> So is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to >>> a newer version? >> >> For

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Graham Breed writes: > It's unfortunate that my library is out of date. It's good that > convert-ly fixes it. One issue with this is that libraries (at least > the way I use them, which may also be out of date) don't declare the > Lilypond version. It's in the including

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Simon Albrecht writes: > On 10.02.2017 00:19, Hans Åberg wrote: >> If LilyPond knows how to run the code via convert-ly, why does it not do it? > > LilyPond itself doesn’t change the code it is reading. convert-ly is a > separate Python script. > It might be a valid

Re: 48 and 72 ET

I'm answering the whole thread here. You should be able to do 48 ET with the standard Lilypond font. You can, for example, start with 12 ET and add arrowed accidentals to get 12*3=36. Then add 12 quartertones to get 48 ET. All you need is to define new note names. I found the font wasn't

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 09/02/2017 17:22, Hans Åberg wrote: > 1. > https://secure2.storegate.com/Shares/Home.aspx?ShareID=35e0b920-6910-4e4f-8340-7d8290115dda > > thank you! ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 10.02.2017 00:19, Hans Åberg wrote: If LilyPond knows how to run the code via convert-ly, why does it not do it? LilyPond itself doesn’t change the code it is reading. convert-ly is a separate Python script. It might be a valid feature request, though, to have a command-line option which

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: > enthused. Why wouldn't we want to have best practices pointed out and > promoted on the user list? Best practices do not include attacking other list users. -- Matthew Skala msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca People before principles.

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:16, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> So is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to >> a newer version? > > For libraries, you would want to keep track of the changes, but > running convert-ly and do

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Am 10.02.2017 um 00:22 schrieb Hans Åberg: >> So is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to a >> newer version? > For libraries, you would want to keep track of the changes, but running > convert-ly and do a diff is a good suggestion. Though doing it by hand was >

Re: 48 and 72 ET

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes: > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >> I'll stick with my "that doesn't even make sense" verdict, thank you >> very much. > > Don't ask the question if you're going to attack the answer. When I ask for a reason why one would _not_ use documented best

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:16, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:53, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup wrote:

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:05, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: >> I'll stick with my "that doesn't even make sense" verdict, thank you >> very much. > > Don't ask the question if you're going to attack the answer. Your > contributions to LilyPond

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:53, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup wrote: Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote: > I'll stick with my "that doesn't even make sense" verdict, thank you > very much. Don't ask the question if you're going to attack the answer. Your contributions to LilyPond development don't excuse you from practicing basic civility. -- Matthew Skala

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:53, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup wrote:

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup wrote: Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup wrote:

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup wrote: Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> Hans Åberg writes: >>> > On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: I've used Sagittal notation based on

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:13, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > On 09/02/2017 16:46, Hans Åberg wrote: >> Yes, I have. I use it for E53 Helmholtz-Ellis notation, which >> requires the Bravura font... > > Have you publish this code somewhere? I just put it up at [1]. You need to

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 09/02/2017 16:46, Hans Åberg wrote: > Yes, I have. I use it for E53 Helmholtz-Ellis notation, which > requires the Bravura font... Have you publish this code somewhere? ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: 48 and 72 ET

Hans Åberg writes: >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: >> >> I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ >> before. I don't know if that still works with more recent versions >> though. Haven't touched it in a while.

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup wrote: > > Hans Åberg writes: > >>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: >>> >>> I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ >>> before. I don't know if that

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:00, Hans Åberg wrote: > > >> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: >> >> I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ before. I >> don't know if that still works with more recent versions though.

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: > > I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ before. I > don't know if that still works with more recent versions though. Haven't > touched it in a while. I get an error in LilyPond 2.19.45, with

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > On 09/02/2017 16:29, Bernardo Barros wrote: >> It indeed looks like LilyPond default font doesn't have all the >> necessary glyphs. > > You're right, SMuFL implements Sims’s accidental system for 72-ET, and >

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham wrote: > > I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ before. I > don't know if that still works with more recent versions though. Haven't > touched it in a while. I was able to tweak regular.ly so it

Re: 48 and 72 ET

I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/ before. I don't know if that still works with more recent versions though. Haven't touched it in a while. -Cole On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: > On 09/02/2017 14:59, Hans Åberg

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 09/02/2017 16:29, Bernardo Barros wrote: > It indeed looks like LilyPond default font doesn't have all the > necessary glyphs. You're right, SMuFL implements Sims’s accidental system for 72-ET, and "Extended Stein-Zimmermann" which could be used for 48-ET.

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:29, Bernardo Barros wrote: > > On 09/02/2017 14:59, Hans Åberg wrote: >> Multiples of 12 are straightforward, though LilyPond glyphs are >> limited. For other ETs, use Graham Breed's regular.ly. More glyphs >> can be gotten using SMuFL.org with

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 09/02/2017 14:59, Hans Åberg wrote: > Multiples of 12 are straightforward, though LilyPond glyphs are > limited. For other ETs, use Graham Breed's regular.ly. More glyphs > can be gotten using SMuFL.org with OpenLilyPond. Thank you for your reply, Hans Yes, it looks like all the tools are

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:18, Simon Albrecht wrote: > > On 09.02.2017 20:59, Hans Åberg wrote: >> Multiples of 12 are straightforward, though LilyPond glyphs are limited. For >> other ETs, use Graham Breed's regular.ly. More glyphs can be gotten using >> SMuFL.org with

Re: 48 and 72 ET

On 09.02.2017 20:59, Hans Åberg wrote: Multiples of 12 are straightforward, though LilyPond glyphs are limited. For other ETs, use Graham Breed's regular.ly. More glyphs can be gotten using SMuFL.org with OpenLilyPond. read: openLilyLib, right? Best, Simon

Re: 48 and 72 ET

> On 9 Feb 2017, at 20:18, Bernardo Barros wrote: > Quarter-tones (24ET) work very well and use the most used symbols. > > Is there any implementation of eighth-tone (48ET) with arrows for the > 8th-tone alterations, or even better, 72ET? Multiples of 12 are