Lukas-Fabian Moser <[email protected]> writes: > Thanks for the explanations! >> Your idea is good. The infrastructure is not there. We probably should >> have something like make-translator for stuff that just translates >> events and/or meddles with context properties. >> >> So you probably need to work on the music expressions for now similar to >> how articulate.ly does things. > > Just so I understand correctly: I shouldn't use an engraver at all but > write a music function?
It's more "can't" rather than "shouldn't". > And if I understood everything correctly to this point, this is more > difficult since at the time a music function is interpreted, the > actual position in time of the music in question is not yet known. Yes, this is "this sucks" territory. MIDI is a bit underrepresented. We don't even have a Scheme representation of the grob equivalent for MIDI (mobs ?). > So, it might be a bit involved here since what I'm doing is inherently > non-local (in contrast to, as far as I can see, \articulate): I think > I would have to keep track of time signature changes, do some > book-keeping on note lengths to know when a measure is complete, and > so on. This seems certainly possible, and ... well ... let's say, it > certainly is another opportunity to increase my understanding of > Scheme and Lilypond. :-) Best fix would be probably to create generic Scheme _translators_ (agnostic to being in a particular kind of output). At first, this might just entail not skipping over their creators in Midi context creation. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
