How to include code in e-mail? (was: Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition)
Am 20.08.2015 um 09:41 schrieb Phil Holmes: For trivially small examples (like this is) I think most people find it far easier to comment if you post the code in line, rather than as an attachment. I certainly do. I just recalled this remark of yours and wanted to reply to it. I’ve taken a habit of (almost) always including code as an attachment, since thus (a) there’s no chance of it getting messed up anywhere on its path and (b) I work with Frescobaldi (as a majority of people do, I think) and to test the code I needn’t even do any copypaste but can just open the file with Frescobaldi. On the other hand it doesn’t allow commenting inline, that’s true. So likely it’s a matter of preference. What do others think? Yours, Simon ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Am 20.08.2015 um 07:29 schrieb David Kastrup:
Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de writes:
Hello,
I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there
is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen
with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear
in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it?
Yours, Simon
\version 2.19.23
\relative c'{
\time 2/4
d8 e f g |
\set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment 3/4)
f4
}
You are setting the measurePosition to a value beyond any valid one.
What are you even trying to achieve here,
I’m not trying to achieve anything, I just played around with different
values for measurePosition and when it showed this interference with
beaming, I wondered if there was some unwanted behaviour in this, but as
Trevor explained, it’s consistent that this happens, so the answer is:
ignore it.
and why are you not using
\partial instead (which makes sure to set measurePosition at a safe
time, after all position-related processing has finished)?
Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario.
is misstating the situation. This is not about being realistic or not,
this is about being complete nonsense. I can't even imagine what you'd
expect LilyPond to be doing here.
Since even -1/4 gave correct results, I thought there might be some kind
of modulo in effect so that 3/4 or any 1/4 + n/2 with n being any
integer would be equivalent to 1/4 (with measureLength =
#(ly:make-moment 1/2)).
Let’s close the issue.
Yours, Simon
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Tinkering with your example seems to suggest that any value that is larger than the time signature will produce the unwanted behaviour. That is, if you set the Timing.measurePosition to anything bigger than the normal size of a bar in the current time signature, the beam before the override is broken. It's odd for sure, but perhaps understandable: you're effectively telling LilyPond that a 2/4 bar has 3 beats left, or that a 3/4 bar has 4 beats left. I'm not sure if I would consider it a bug or not, but it's definitely undesirable. Kevin On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote: Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote in message news:55d51b39.2010...@mail.de... I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it? Yours, Simon Simon, What are you trying to do with this example? Also, for trivially small examples (like this is) I think most people find it far easier to comment if you post the code in line, rather than as an attachment. I certainly do. -- Phil Holmes ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de writes:
Hello,
I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there
is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen
with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear
in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it?
Yours, Simon
\version 2.19.23
\relative c'{
\time 2/4
d8 e f g |
\set Timing.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment 3/4)
f4
}
You are setting the measurePosition to a value beyond any valid one.
What are you even trying to achieve here, and why are you not using
\partial instead (which makes sure to set measurePosition at a safe
time, after all position-related processing has finished)?
Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario.
is misstating the situation. This is not about being realistic or not,
this is about being complete nonsense. I can't even imagine what you'd
expect LilyPond to be doing here.
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Kevin Barry barr...@gmail.com writes: Tinkering with your example seems to suggest that any value that is larger than the time signature will produce the unwanted behaviour. That is, if you set the Timing.measurePosition to anything bigger than the normal size of a bar in the current time signature, the beam before the override is broken. It's odd for sure, but perhaps understandable: you're effectively telling LilyPond that a 2/4 bar has 3 beats left, No, he is telling LilyPond that of a 2/4 bar, 3 beats have already passed regularly and LilyPond forgot to start the next bar in time. Then he complains that LilyPond does not react to this slander in the way he expected. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Simon Albrecht simon.albre...@mail.de wrote in message news:55d51b39.2010...@mail.de... I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it? Yours, Simon Simon, What are you trying to do with this example? Also, for trivially small examples (like this is) I think most people find it far easier to comment if you post the code in line, rather than as an attachment. I certainly do. -- Phil Holmes ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autoBeaming and \set measurePosition
Simon Albrecht wrote Thursday, August 20, 2015 1:11 AM I don’t quite know what I’m supposed to think of this: With 3/4, there is no beam between the third and fourth quavers. It doesn’t happen with -1/4, 0, 1/4, or 2/4. Doesn’t seem like this is going to appear in any realistic scenario. Just ignore it? Automatic beams which are created using beamExceptions are triggered when the beam end points are passed. Skipping the end point like this means beam creation is not triggered. I think just ignore it. If anyone wants to do this it's easy to add a manual beam. Trevor ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
