On Friday, 17 March 2000, Alain CULOS writes:
> That's not working at all (failing to display anything).
You should, (of course?), set the dos equivalents of
export GS_FONTPATH=$HOME/usr/src/lilypond/mf/out
but Mats is right, don't go this way (unless maybe you don't have TeX
up and running). Hmm, this is a FAQ.
> Whereas going the normal path ly->dvi then dvi->ps works beautifully, thou
+ gh
> I don't read the dvi fully (some missing fonts), the resulting ps is perfect
+ (or
> appears to be so).
Ah. See previous post. I changed and added this to the faq:
@subsubsection The beams and slurs are gone when using the XDvi magnifying glass!?
Various dynamic symbols, such as beams, crescendi, slurs are done in
PostScript. XDvi doesn't show PostScript in the magnifying glass.
Complain to the XDvi maintainers.
@subsubsection Beams, slurs and crescendi are not displayed at all!
See previous answer. XDvi uses GhostScript for displaying PostScript,
check that you have GhostScript installed. If you use a different
DVI viewer, check if it will display embedded PostScript. Don't worry,
the symbols should appear on the printout.
> > > I'd appreciate if someone could help or point me to the right doc.
> > Have a look over here:
> > http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/lilypond/Documentation/programmer/out-www/R
+ EADME-W32.html
> Geez, that's more of a helper for the programmer than the user, I don't reall
+ y
> want to go into that (I already overbooked myself).
That's why we recommend using GNU/Linux ;-)
> Well, you can always argue about this one, so just in brief :
> Why is there quoting in Unix if not to include special characters, e.g. space
+ s ?
> DOS does not cope with much but Windows DOS copes with a little more and I us
+ e
> bash anyway and quoting makes it work most often although not always.
Do what you like, I just advice against spaces in file names.
> I know, Unix despite all its advantages is bad in this respect.
> naming conventions help users better organise and learn more about their
> computer.
> OK, it would be better still if recognising a format only relied on the conte
+ nts
> of the file (with some magick number or initial string) which is what is used
+ in
> some cases in the Unix world but not consistently enough, at least the window
+ s
> world is pretty consistent on the extensions because it relies on it.
Hmm. I guess that was exactly my point. If it's so great, why did you
have to ask what a .foo file really is?
> I have seen that alright, but. If you have a piece with notes like full notes
> and half notes,
> it does not make sense to me that it should convert (if in fool/bullet proof
> mode, e.g. dummy
> mode) to 19/32's of something or other followed by some wierd skip, just roun
+ d
> to the closest
> match and forget about the skip and put proper rests when a real skip is
> recognised. I know
> this is not easy at all but it would be so nice.
Please englighten me, what's the difference between a real skip and a
weird skip? Anything except the simple quantise feature seems to get
real complex. Maybe a --no-rests would be an option (for the todo),
but I doubt if that would be really helpful for anything but the
simplest of tunes.
Greetings,
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
