2012/11/4 David Kastrup <[email protected]>:
> David Nalesnik <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I show both versions below. (Note that running convert-ly on an older
>> file will update the syntax automatically.)
Hi David(s),
@ David (N)
there is a copy/paste error
>> \version "2.16.0"
>>
>> \relative c'' {
>> \once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) ((0 1 1 1)) )
>> % or \once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) ()
^^^^^
>> % or \once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) )
>> )
^^^^^
>> c1~
>> \break
>> c
>> }
>>
should read:
\version "2.16.0"
\relative c'' {
\once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) ((0 1 1 1)) )
% or
% \once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) () )
% or
% \once \alterBroken Tie #'dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) )
c1~
\break
c
}
Works as expected.
[...]
> Or, of course, the version as a tweak, not requiring you to specify "Tie":
>
> \version "2.17.6"
>
> \relative c'' {
> c1-\alterBroken dash-definition #'( ((0 1 0.4 0.75)) ((0 1 1 1)) )
> ~
> c1~
> \break
> c
> }
@ David (K)
Sorry, but with this coding no dashed Tie is printed and the terminal returns:
warning: not a spanner
~
>
> It will still be a bit of work before the - before \alterBroken becomes
> optional.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
-Harm
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
