David Wright wrote:
> But your response here addresses a second point, the
> interpretation of \repeat unfold. Looking at my attached
> example, it seems to me that you want "\repeat unfold 2 { foo }"
> to behave like "foo foo" (B and C).
Yes, that's exact!
> But, if that's what you want,
>
On Mon 16 Jan 2017 at 12:08:28 (+0100), Gianmaria Lari wrote:
> I'm sorry, clearly there is a misunderstanding and it is probably from my
> side, my apologies.
>
> Let's me try to explain what I mean. Try to have a look to this code and
> the related output (it is attached).
There seem to be two
I'm sorry, clearly there is a misunderstanding and it is probably from my
side, my apologies.
Let's me try to explain what I mean. Try to have a look to this code and
the related output (it is attached).
\version "2.19.54"
\include "addFingering.ly"
fragment = {c' d' e' f'}
\markup "Plain"
On Sat 14 Jan 2017 at 11:47:49 (+0100), Gianmaria Lari wrote:
> > \repeat unfold is not evaluated at all. It stays a repeat expression
> > until it gets interpreted. One reason it is implemented that way is in
> > order to keep the repeats in
> >
> > \relative c' { \repeat unfold 4 { c e g } }
>
Gianmaria Lari writes:
>> \repeat { }
>>
>> generates a repeat expression. Whether that is "unfold" or not.
>> And relativity works "linearly" across the expression even when
>> alternatives are involved where having to write \relative each time
>> would be a
> \repeat { }
>
> generates a repeat expression. Whether that is "unfold" or not.
> And relativity works "linearly" across the expression even when
> alternatives are involved where having to write \relative each time
> would be a royal pita.
> --
> David Kastrup
Yes that's clear.
But
Gianmaria Lari writes:
>> \repeat unfold is not evaluated at all. It stays a repeat expression
>> until it gets interpreted. One reason it is implemented that way is in
>> order to keep the repeats in
>>
>> \relative c' { \repeat unfold 4 { c e g } }
>>
>> in the same
> \repeat unfold is not evaluated at all. It stays a repeat expression
> until it gets interpreted. One reason it is implemented that way is in
> order to keep the repeats in
>
> \relative c' { \repeat unfold 4 { c e g } }
>
> in the same octave rather than get
>
> \relative c' { c e g c e g c e
Thank you David Kastrup and Nalesnik and Gilles for you answer your help
and your explication!
I don't like the idea to use a custom repeat instead of the standard. But I
will make some test and see.
Thank you again!
___
lilypond-user mailing list
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 7:21 PM, David Nalesnik
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Gilles THIBAULT
> wrote:
>> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit :
>>> I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet.
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Gilles THIBAULT
wrote:
> Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit :
>> I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet.
>>
>> Here it is my simple code.
>>
>> \version "2.19.54"
>> \include "addFingering.ly"
Le vendredi 13 janvier 2017, 14:06:23 Gianmaria Lari a écrit :
> I have a problem with (the fantastic) addFingering snippet.
>
> Here it is my simple code.
>
> \version "2.19.54"
> \include "addFingering.ly"
>
> {
> \addFingering {a b a b} #"12"
> }
>
> {
> \addFingering {\repeat unfold
Gianmaria Lari writes:
> I probably figured out the reason of this behavior. The function
> "addFingering" is evaluated before evaluating the repeat. So lilypond
> evaluate this
>
> \addFingering {\repeat unfold 2 {a b}} #"12"
>
>
> as
>
> \repeat unfold 2 {a-1 b-2}
>
I probably figured out the reason of this behavior. The function
"addFingering" is evaluated before evaluating the repeat. So lilypond
evaluate this
\addFingering {\repeat unfold 2 {a b}} #"12"
as
\repeat unfold 2 {a-1 b-2}
instead of
\addFingering {a b a b} #"12"
But why? Is it
14 matches
Mail list logo