Re: stem direction when crossing staves
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 2:13 AM, Peter Wannemacher
pe...@scriptureoftheweek.com wrote:
Greetings,
I have a part which crosses between two staves. I would like the stems to go
down when on the upper staff and up when on the lower staff. I have succeeded
in
the example below, but I would like not to have to type stem direction (or
\voiceOne) along with the \change Staff each time. Is that possible?
I'm not 100% sure, but i think there's currectly no easy way to do
that. However, you can make your life easier by writing an alias for
this task:
sdn = { \change Staff=lh \stemUp }
hth,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Key signature shifted
Hello,
in the following MWE:
%
\version 2.16.2
music = { c c c c }
musicA = \relative c'' {
\key c \major
\music
\key d \major
\music
}
musicB = \relative c'' {
\key g \minor
\music
\key c \major
\music
}
musicAPart = \new Staff \musicA
musicBPart = \new Staff \musicB
\musicAPart
\musicAPart
\musicBPart
\musicBPart
%
the key signature with 2 sharps in 2nd measure:
1. line 1, is located just after the preceding bar
2. line 3, is shifted to the right.
Is it a bug or a feature? ;)
Thanks.
--
Denis
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Key signature shifted
Denis Bitouzé dbito...@wanadoo.fr writes:
in the following MWE:
%
\version 2.16.2
music = { c c c c }
musicA = \relative c'' {
\key c \major
\music
\key d \major
\music
}
musicB = \relative c'' {
\key g \minor
\music
\key c \major
\music
}
musicAPart = \new Staff \musicA
musicBPart = \new Staff \musicB
\musicAPart
\musicAPart
\musicBPart
\musicBPart
%
the key signature with 2 sharps in 2nd measure:
1. line 1, is located just after the preceding bar
2. line 3, is shifted to the right.
Is it a bug or a feature? ;)
If you replace the c \major in musicB with d\major or g\major or
a\major, I think you'll see the point of this alignment choice.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Key signature shifted
Le mercredi 13/03/13 à 09h19, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org a écrit : If you replace the c \major in musicB with d\major or g\major or a\major, I think you'll see the point of this alignment choice. In that cases, wow, nice and powerful! But in my case (empty key after key cancellation), it looks rather strange, isn't it? Thanks! -- Denis ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Aligning 'to Coda' rehearsal marks
Jim Long wrote
How can I create a coda mark which:
1) aligns the X-center line of the coda glyph with the X-center of
the barline;
2) places the arbitrary to Coda alongside the glyph, while leaving
the glyph itself centered over the barline; and
An elegant solution to this would be very welcome. Thank you for
your time.
maybe it's a hack but it will do for many cases:
- add the text after the glyph as well, but hide it,
- correct the horizontal space before and after the glyph
- make sure the horizontal self alignment of the rehearsal mark is center
it should be possible to write a small scheme function to avoid having to
type the same text twice or to calculate the length of the text in another
way.
\once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'self-alignment-X = #center % default
\mark \markup {
to coda
\hspace #1
\raise #1 \musicglyph #scripts.coda
\hspace #-.5
\with-color #white
to coda
}
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Aligning-to-Coda-rehearsal-marks-tp142601p142626.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Staccato mark outside slur
Greetings - I'm running LY 2.16.2 under Linux Ubuntu. I'm trying to move a staccato mark outside a slur, and I'm not having any luck. I'm attaching a minimal .ly file, its result, and an image of what I'm trying to achieve. Can anyone point out my error? I appreciate your time and attention, Ralph[image: Inline image 1] -- Ralph Palmer Brattleboro, VT USA palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com image.png TestBartokStaccato.ly Description: Binary data TestBartokStaccato.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Staccato mark outside slur
Ralph Palmer palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com writes: Greetings - I'm running LY 2.16.2 under Linux Ubuntu. I'm trying to move a staccato mark outside a slur, and I'm not having any luck. I'm attaching a minimal .ly file, its result, and an image of what I'm trying to achieve. Can anyone point out my error? Try working with Script rather than TextScript. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: FiguredBass accidental size
Greetings, after having looked at a couple of printed scores (e.g. Telemann: Sechs ausgewählte Ouvertüren für Orchester... Bärenreiter-Ausgabe 2983, dated 1955) I found that the size of accidentals is at least the same as the size of the figures. I also found out that there already is an issue in the bug tracker: Accidentals should use the normal fontsize in figured bass (Issue 816). I am not sure what Status: started and Patch: abandoned mean. Could anyone help with a workaround? Thank you, Thomas Original-Nachricht Hi, I would like to make the accidentals in figured bass bigger when they are used alone like this: _+ _- _!. % As figuredBassAlteration the size is o.k. for me. Thank you Thomas ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Staccato mark outside slur
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:27 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Ralph Palmer palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com writes: Greetings - I'm running LY 2.16.2 under Linux Ubuntu. I'm trying to move a staccato mark outside a slur, and I'm not having any luck. I'm attaching a minimal .ly file, its result, and an image of what I'm trying to achieve. Can anyone point out my error? Try working with Script rather than TextScript. Beautiful! Thanks for the quick and helpful response, David. Ralph -- Ralph Palmer Brattleboro, VT USA palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Staccato mark outside slur
Ralph Palmer palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com writes: On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:27 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Ralph Palmer palmer.r.vio...@gmail.com writes: Greetings - I'm running LY 2.16.2 under Linux Ubuntu. I'm trying to move a staccato mark outside a slur, and I'm not having any luck. I'm attaching a minimal .ly file, its result, and an image of what I'm trying to achieve. Can anyone point out my error? Try working with Script rather than TextScript. Beautiful! Thanks for the quick and helpful response, David. If you are using tweaks rather than overrides, you have one less possibility to make a mistake. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
\relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
This is a breakaway thread from the one with the subject Proposed new
available and recommended behavior of \relative
I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the proposal now
stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have the first pitch in a
\relative block be absolute and the rest be relative.
But I have another idea. I'm not sure if people will like it right away
because it means changing/adding MORE syntax, but I think it will be MORE
useful and more *intuitive*!
Here's the idea.
1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a mnemonic for
_A_bsolute) to be the syntax for temporarily specifying an ABSOLUTE PITCH
within a \relative block, such that the next pitch, if it doesn't use the
@-sign also, is relative to the absolute pitch.
2. Keep \relative X { ... } working the same way as it is (DON'T make
convert-ly change it around).
3. Make \relative { X ... } work such the first pitch after the brace is
expected to be an absolute pitch syntax with the single equal sign. If it is
not, a warning is printed and the pitch is interpreted as relative to c' (the
current behavior, except for the warning, right?).
Why a new syntax? I frequently find that if I jump to the end of a big, long
\relative { ... }, then frequently I don't remember which octave I'm in.
Octave check is not a solution, because if I guess the part that comes before
the = sign wrong, I'll keep getting warnings until I fix it. What is wanted is
a way to temporarily jump into absolute note entry mode. An @-sign comes
immediately after the note name, and is followed by any apostrophes or commas
as necessary to specify the absolute octave.
Examples:
1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, }
These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are redundant
here.
They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error
outside of \relative blocks.
2. \relative c' { c4 g, g@' g }
This is the same as { c'4 g, g' g' } in absolute mode, if I read it
right.
The last g is relative to the absolute g.
3. \relative { c@'4 c g' c }
This is the same as { c'4 c' g' c'' } in absolute mode.
This would be the form that new users of LilyPond would be encouraged
to use in the documentation.
4. \relative { c4 c g' c }
This is the same as
\relative c' { c4 c g' c }
EXCEPT that a warning will be printed about encountering
\relative { X ... }
where X is not specified absolutely (with at-sign).
What do people think?
--Christopher
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
Am 13.03.2013 20:24, schrieb nothingwaver...@gmail.com:
This is a breakaway thread from the one with the subject Proposed new available and
recommended behavior of \relative
I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the proposal now
stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have the first pitch in a
\relative block be absolute and the rest be relative.
But I have another idea. I'm not sure if people will like it right away
because it means changing/adding MORE syntax, but I think it will be MORE
useful and more *intuitive*!
Here's the idea.
1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a mnemonic for
_A_bsolute) to be the syntax for temporarily specifying an ABSOLUTE PITCH
within a \relative block, such that the next pitch, if it doesn't use the
@-sign also, is relative to the absolute pitch.
2. Keep \relative X { ... } working the same way as it is (DON'T make
convert-ly change it around).
3. Make \relative { X ... } work such the first pitch after the brace is
expected to be an absolute pitch syntax with the single equal sign. If it is
not, a warning is printed and the pitch is interpreted as relative to c' (the
current behavior, except for the warning, right?).
Why a new syntax? I frequently find that if I jump to the end of a big, long
\relative { ... }, then frequently I don't remember which octave I'm in.
Octave check is not a solution, because if I guess the part that comes before
the = sign wrong, I'll keep getting warnings until I fix it. What is wanted is
a way to temporarily jump into absolute note entry mode. An @-sign comes
immediately after the note name, and is followed by any apostrophes or commas
as necessary to specify the absolute octave.
IMHO it would be more readable to define an \absolute command for that
specific purpose:
Instead of { c4 c' c@'' c@, } you'd have
\relative { c4 c' \absolute { c'' c' } }
or even
\relative { c4 c' \absolute { c'' } c, }
This seems to be more readable, especially if you use it at the
beginning or the end of a block.
On the other hand, you could split your big, long \relative { ... }
into smaller \relative blocks, and *if* the first entry is seen as
absolute, you don't need any \absolute or @ within the block at all.
Just my 2 ct
Marc
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the
proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have
the first pitch in a \relative block be absolute and the rest be
relative.
But the first entry of a \relative block must be relative to
something, right? So, simply consider that \relative { ... } is
always relative to `c', and you get exactly the same.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the
proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have
the first pitch in a \relative block be absolute and the rest be
relative.
But the first entry of a \relative block must be relative to
something, right? So, simply consider that \relative { ... } is
always relative to `c', and you get exactly the same.
Well, the current proposal is to be relative to f rather than c' as
previously.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
nothingwaver...@gmail.com writes:
This is a breakaway thread from the one with the subject Proposed new
available and recommended behavior of \relative
I don't see what makes it breakaway.
I am *OPPOSED* to the proposal to change \relative syntax, as the
proposal now stands. I think it is confusing to new users to have the
first pitch in a \relative block be absolute and the rest be relative.
Shrug. Consider it relative to f, then.
Personally, I find
\relative { g'' a b c } - g'' a'' b'' c'''
\relative { f'' a b c } - f'' a'' b'' c'''
more intuitive than the behavior you propose:
\relative { g'' a b c } - g'' a'' b'' c''' plus a warning
\relative { f'' a b c } - f''' a''' b''' c plus a warning
But I have another idea. I'm not sure if people will like it right
away because it means changing/adding MORE syntax, but I think it will
be MORE useful and more *intuitive*!
More syntax is rarely more intuitive for writing since one would not
think of it without prompting. I don't consider it more intuitive for
reading, either.
Here's the idea.
1. Define absolute octave syntax with the @-sign (let it be a mnemonic
for _A_bsolute) to be the syntax for temporarily specifying an
ABSOLUTE PITCH within a \relative block, such that the next pitch, if
it doesn't use the @-sign also, is relative to the absolute pitch.
We already have \resetRelativeOctave c'' for resetting the reference
pitch to c''. One could argue for a shorter name, if one considers it
really important.
2. Keep \relative X { ... } working the same way as it is (DON'T make
convert-ly change it around).
There was no proposal to change the meaning of \relative X. The changes
from convert-ly were meant to make more use of the new \relative without
X, but not for changing the meaning of \relative X.
3. Make \relative { X ... } work such the first pitch after the brace
is expected to be an absolute pitch syntax with the single equal sign.
Sounds like _another_ syntax not mentioned before.
If it is not, a warning is printed and the pitch is interpreted as
relative to c' (the current behavior, except for the warning, right?).
No idea what you mean by absolute pitch syntax with the single equal
sign, in particular as you want to be interpreted relative to c' as
fallback which does not appear to make any sense (have a fallback
behave differently than what the check should be for?).
Why a new syntax? I frequently find that if I jump to the end of a
big, long \relative { ... }, then frequently I don't remember which
octave I'm in.
Welcome to \relative.
Octave check is not a solution, because if I guess the part that comes
before the = sign wrong, I'll keep getting warnings until I fix it.
Welcome to \resetRelativeOctave. Alternatively, just start a new
\relative block inside of the existing one. Its pitches will be
independent from the outside ones, and the starting pitch is specified
absolutely.
What is wanted is a way to temporarily jump into absolute note entry
mode.
Welcome to \transpose c c { ... }. Which we might call \absolute if
people want that often enough.
An @-sign comes immediately after the note name, and is followed by
any apostrophes or commas as necessary to specify the absolute octave.
Examples:
1.{ c4 c' c@'' c@, }
That looks a lot like Not invented here syndrome to me. You reject
the existing mechanisms as well as proposals fitting with the current
syntax in order to propose ones that purportedly do the same job without
fitting in the existing framework.
3.\relative { c@'4 c g' c }
This is the same as { c'4 c' g' c'' } in absolute mode.
This would be the form that new users of LilyPond would be
encouraged to use in the documentation.
And what would be c'@'4 ? And how does it combine with octave checks?
4.\relative { c4 c g' c }
This is the same as
\relative c' { c4 c g' c }
EXCEPT that a warning will be printed about encountering
\relative { X ... }
where X is not specified absolutely (with at-sign).
If you don't want the behavior used, just prohibit it and use convert-ly
to get rid of existing usage. That's issue 3231 currently on countdown.
What do people think?
Not a winner to me. I would not want to spend a potentially useful
extension character like @ on something that does not appear to offer
anything new.
Now you don't like the current proposal, and that's duly noted.
Brainstorming is always exciting and makes one fond of one's own flashes
of genius. But I think that if you view this proposal realistically,
you'll find that it has several badly defined aspects, it is not
self-explanatory (of course neither is \relative { f'' }, but at least
without any previous exposure to relative mode starting pitches, a
result of f'' is a more likely guess to me than f'''), and it clutters
the writing of pitches additionally.
It is also leads to inconsistencies:
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
But the first entry of a \relative block must be relative to
something, right? So, simply consider that \relative { ... } is
always relative to `c', and you get exactly the same.
Well, the current proposal is to be relative to f rather than c' as
previously.
Ah, yes :-)
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote:
Examples:
1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, }
These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are
redundant here.
They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error
outside of \relative blocks.
What do people think?
Hmmm... I'd use the @ sign as a prefix, not as a suffix, as in:
{ c4 c' @c'' @c, }
However, more fundamentally, I think the entire discussion relates to the
intent of \relative and the current use seen by the LiliPond community.
I'd rather see \relative { @c4 c' c'' c, } than \relative { c4 c' c'' c, }
in cases when the first pitch is supposed / expected to be an absolute
pitch. However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an
absolute pitch in the first place.
Maybe we must work on the intent of \relative first.
Just my 2 cents.
Best regards,
Olivier
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Aligning 'to Coda' rehearsal marks
Jim Long wrote
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 03:43:04AM -0700, Eluze wrote:
\once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'self-alignment-X = #center %
default
\mark \markup {
to coda
\hspace #1
\raise #1 \musicglyph #scripts.coda
\hspace #-.5
\with-color #white
to coda
}
Hmm, an interesting approach. Might this create artificial
invisible collisions between the white text and other markup
that might closely follow the glyph?
most certainly
I'll fiddle with it a bit, just the same. Early tests indicate that the
amount of negative
hspace required in the second position is surprisingly large.
#-16.25 seems to be the best approximation so far.
the \hspace before and after the glyph are only to compensate for the
(missing in the 1st case) gap between the glyph and the preceding/following
text - they should only be adapted if you're changing the \fontsize and
\magnify the glyph (this is also the way to solve your 3rd question)
Eluze
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Aligning-to-Coda-rehearsal-marks-tp142601p142664.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
Olivier Biot olivier.b...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote:
Examples:
1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, }
These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are
redundant here.
They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error
outside of \relative blocks.
What do people think?
Hmmm... I'd use the @ sign as a prefix, not as a suffix, as in:
{ c4 c' @c'' @c, }
However, more fundamentally, I think the entire discussion relates to
the intent of \relative and the current use seen by the LiliPond
community.
I'd rather see \relative { @c4 c' c'' c, } than \relative { c4 c' c''
c, } in cases when the first pitch is supposed / expected to be an
absolute pitch.
What else is it supposed to be?
However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an
absolute pitch in the first place.
It can be relative to f if we want to. That adds the least amount of
information to the first pitch.
Maybe we must work on the intent of \relative first.
I have a hard time imagining what that is supposed to mean if we assume
that we haven't been doing it so far.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: \relative proposal: putting absolute pitches anywhere within \relative block using @-sign
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 11:44 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Olivier Biot olivier.b...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, nothingwaver...@gmail.com wrote:
Examples:
1. { c4 c' c@'' c@, }
These are interpreted as absolute pitches, so the @-signs are
redundant here.
They could be silently ignored, or the at signs could be an error
outside of \relative blocks.
What do people think?
Hmmm... I'd use the @ sign as a prefix, not as a suffix, as in:
{ c4 c' @c'' @c, }
However, more fundamentally, I think the entire discussion relates to
the intent of \relative and the current use seen by the LiliPond
community.
I'd rather see \relative { @c4 c' c'' c, } than \relative { c4 c' c''
c, } in cases when the first pitch is supposed / expected to be an
absolute pitch.
What else is it supposed to be?
e.g, a relative pitch. It could be used e.g. for transposition. The problem
remains in that it's hard to determine where we should pin the starting
pitch to an absolute pitch, since there are several successful recipes we
can think of: default reference pitch, transposition, start with an
absolute pitch.
However there is no fundamental need for the first pitch being an
absolute pitch in the first place.
It can be relative to f if we want to. That adds the least amount of
information to the first pitch.
Depends on what we want to achieve. I tend to think in terms of why am I
using this...
Maybe we must work on the intent of \relative first.
I have a hard time imagining what that is supposed to mean if we assume
that we haven't been doing it so far.
We have, but maybe not always as explicitly.
Best regards,
Olivier
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Key signature shifted
Denis Bitouzé dbitouze at wanadoo.fr writes: In that cases, wow, nice and powerful! But in my case (empty key after key cancellation), it looks rather strange, isn't it? There is a bug report http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=448 proposing that LilyPond put the key signature and cancellation in one column, when there is only one of each, and also a suggestion to work around the problem with LilyPond as it is now. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Aligning 'to Coda' rehearsal marks
2013/3/13 Jim Long lilyp...@umpquanet.com:
I'm not content with my skills in engraving coda jumps. I suspect
Lilypond could do better if I knew how to code it.
My current method is to use a rehearsal mark to concatenate some
text and a Coda glyph, and then apply a trial-end-error X-offset
until it lines up the way I want it to, and then when the layout
changes, I usually have to adjust it again.
In my example code, the first score uses \toCoda to create coda
glyph centered very nicely over the barline. I modify the
visibility properties of the rehearsal mark so that if the barline
is broken, the coda mark will not be visibile at the beginning of
a line. I also set the outside-staff-priority so that the coda
glyph will be engraved in between the staff and the volta
brackets. And yes, many of the coda marks are placed oddly in
the code, to demonstrate that the break-visibility property is
doing what I want it to do.
This code also scales well to the smaller size shown in the second
example, although I don't understand why a magnification factor of
1.0 results in a smaller size.
The third variable 'txtCoda' contains a more detailed representation
of what I like to use, but it requires manual manipulation to get it
to align, and one size does not fit all.
How can I create a coda mark which:
1) aligns the X-center line of the coda glyph with the X-center of
the barline;
2) places the arbitrary to Coda alongside the glyph, while leaving
the glyph itself centered over the barline; and
3) can be scaled easily (text and glyph) to different sizes, without
disturbing the alignment of the coda glyph to the barline?
An elegant solution to this would be very welcome. Thank you for
your time.
Jim
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi Jim,
below some code, which should do what you want.
Usage:
a)
Predefine two markups:
mrkpI = \markup \fontsize #-1 to Coda
mrkpII = \markup \fontsize #-1 { \musicglyph #scripts.coda }
b)
Combine and align them with `alignCombinedRehearsalMarks´. Use an alist:
myMarkI =
\alignCombinedRehearsalMarks \mrkpI \mrkpII
#`(;(center-on-first . #t)
(center-on-second . #t)
;(general-align . ,LEFT)
(outside-staff-priority . 5)
(break-visibility . ,begin-of-line-invisible)
)
This alist offers the possibilities to have the RehearsalMark centered
at the first markup or the second markup or align it as you want as a
whole. Please make one choice.
In addition you may want to set outside-staff-priority and
break-visibility within this alist.
Comment what you don't need, choose the values you want. Even an empty
list will combine the two markups, defaulting all other properties.
Some more comments in the code.
The Code:
\version 2.16.2
alignCombinedRehearsalMarks =
#(define-music-function (parser location mrkp-1 mrkp-2 align)
(markup? markup? list?)
#{
%% Combines and aligns two markups
\once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'before-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
(let* (;; mrkp-stils
(mrkp-1-stil (grob-interpret-markup grob mrkp-1))
(mrkp-2-stil (grob-interpret-markup grob mrkp-2))
;; x-extent of mrkp-stils
(mrkp-1-x-length
(interval-length (ly:stencil-extent mrkp-1-stil X)))
(mrkp-2-x-length
(interval-length (ly:stencil-extent mrkp-2-stil X)))
;; get alist-values
(general-align (assoc-ref align 'general-align))
(center-on-first (assoc-ref align 'center-on-first))
(center-on-second (assoc-ref align 'center-on-second))
(padding 0.6)
;; combine mrkp-1-stil and mrkp-2-stil
(combined-stil
(ly:stencil-combine-at-edge
(ly:stencil-aligned-to
mrkp-1-stil
Y
CENTER)
X
RIGHT
(ly:stencil-aligned-to
mrkp-2-stil
Y
CENTER)
padding))
(combined-stil-length
(interval-length (ly:stencil-extent combined-stil X)))
(set-stencil!
(ly:grob-set-property! grob 'stencil combined-stil))
align the stencil,
defined for:
;; center the new stencil on the first markup
;; for all not #f values.
;; (center-on-first . #t)
;; center the new stencil on the second markup
;; for all not #f values.
