On Nov 28, 2007 4:46 PM, Adam James Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Trevor, > > As you suspected, there WAS indeed a math error -- I checked things > over yet again and found I'd entered a time signature as 4356/6319 > instead of 4365/6319. (I'm doing some things algorithmically and some > intuitively, hence the entering of some data by hand). > > I feel considerably relieved that it was my error and not Lily's! I > feel pretty confident now that I can inflict my sickest notation and > not have to worry about Lily breaking. > > Now the only thing going backwards in time (at least it feels this > way) is my compositional process! Hi Adam, Excellent. I think what clued me in was the error message about going *backwards* in time ... And, yes: I think Han-Wen and the gurus really *really* got it right on the time-keeping: AFAICS, it's all rationals all the time and so completely exact. The formal + intuitive way of working is definitely a great way to go. Maybe a quick script in python just to check things like well-formedness of time signatures and stuff could be a nice addition to your arsenal in future? Good luck with the piece! Looks amazing from the small bits I've seen ... :-) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
