Re: Feeling stupid about markup functions
Hi Urs,
or you define an event-function, as that is what you want in the end:
\version 2.18.2
% I only have stable here right now ...
playing =
#(define-event-function (parser location text)(markup?)
#{ -\markup { \italic \with-color #blue #text } #})
%%
{ c''4 c''\playing lonly }
%%%
HTH
Best, Jan-Peter
On 28.08.2014 02:07, Paul Morris wrote:
Hi Urs,
I would just use a scheme function, as follows. Does it do what you want?
Cheers,
-Paul
\version 2.19.11
myFunction =
#(define-scheme-function (parser location text) (markup?)
#{
\markup \italic \with-color #(x11-color blue) #text
#})
pizz = \myFunction pizz
{
c'1
c'-\myFunction foo
c'-\pizz
}
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Feeling-stupid-about-markup-functions-tp165849p165852.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
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Best practice for parts with varying number of staves
Hi Kieren, 2014-08-28 1:43 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi Janek, What's the status of your partcombining framework”? It stalled last year, usurped by a constant stream of paid commissions. However, my father-in-law has generously offered to sponsor me to take a few weeks and finally engrave that big choral piece I mentioned (which would benefit spectacularly from really good unison/divisi machinery). I could take that two weeks sometime in late September or early October, if that’s good timing for you. By October we should (hopefully) be more or less done with our project - but you never know... Anyway, I've started working on this now - feel invited to join! Could you send me your drafts? (btw, you don't have to tidy them before sending, i know how it's like to stop working on something midway :)) best, Janek ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: brainstorming a really smart system engraver
Hi,
2014-08-28 1:40 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca:
Hi all,
I think that issue 3518 (pushed recently) does just this:
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3518
It doesn't do the automatic AI nightmare part.
Yes, unfortunately...
Yes, sorry - i should've trimmed quoted email better.
However, it provides the low level machinery for pulling in the maximally
required number
of staves between automatic or manual line breaks, where the requirement
is determined by working with keep-alive-interfaces and tags on the
various staff variants.
That could be helpful!
I still need to wrap my head around how this framework/machinery works (or
doesn’t) with
true content-presentation separation; the example on the Google Code page has
multiple
\context Staff” calls buried in the \violins note definition, which to my
mind mixes content
with presentation in an unfortunate way.
I think you looked at an earlier work-in-progress snippet - in the
attachment you can find the final version. Instead of having music
jump between staves, it typesets everything in two variants (divided
and not) and specifies what should be visible at which times. Seems
to be the right way to separate content and presentation.
It's a solid framework for a solid part of the job.
I’ll be interested in my testing to see what percentage of real-world
scenarios this part represents.
The important thing to note is that this framework does _not_ require
manual tampering with line breaks to arrive at correct results.
That is a critical and wonderful feature.
Indeed!
best,
Janek
\version 2.19.13
\header {
texidoc = The @code{VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer}
property can be used for typesetting temporary divisi staves where
the switch to split staves is done only at line breaks such that all
complex passages are rendered in separate staves.
}
boring = \set Staff.keepAliveInterfaces = #'()
tricky = \unset Staff.keepAliveInterfaces
violI=\relative d' {
\boring \repeat unfold 100 d4
\tricky d g'2
\boring \repeat unfold 98 d4
\bar |.
}
violII=\relative g {
\boring \repeat unfold 100 g4
\tricky g d'2
\boring \repeat unfold 98 g4
\bar |.
}
\score {
\new StaffGroup \with { \consists Keep_alive_together_engraver }
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = Violin I
shortInstrumentName = V I
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-empty = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 1
}
\violI
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = Violin II
shortInstrumentName = V II
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-empty = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 1
}
\violII
\new Staff \with { instrumentName = Violins
shortInstrumentName = V III
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 2
}
\violI \\ \violII
\layout {
short-indent = 2\cm
indent = 3\cm
}
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Modifying barline right before a stave is hidden
Hi all,
is it possible to write a function that does something based on
whether the current context will be visible or hidden in the next
system? For example, i have
\version 2.19.12
\layout {
\context {
\Score
\RemoveEmptyStaves
}
}
fooBarline = {}
\new Staff {
\fooBarline
\repeat unfold 24 c'4
R1*8
}
\new Staff {
\repeat unfold 24 f'2
}
And i'd like to define fooBarline so that the last barline before the
staff is hidden (which happens because of RemoveEmptyStaves) is
different.
best,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Modifying barline right before a stave is hidden
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Hi all,
is it possible to write a function that does something based on
whether the current context will be visible or hidden in the next
system? For example, i have
\version 2.19.12
\layout {
\context {
\Score
\RemoveEmptyStaves
}
}
No, and your question does not even make sense. There is no current
context by the time \RemoveEmptyStaves has an effect. Iteration is
over, and arranging the bunch of grobs it produced is already in a late
stage of assembly, after determining line breaks. Any connection to a
context is confined to the properties a Grob inherited from the
engraver's context's properties at the time it was created.
\RemoveEmptyStaves has resulted in the creation of VerticalAxisGroup
grobs with suicidal tendencies. They commit suicide based on the live
and death of other potentially suicidal VerticalAxisGroup grobs, and
based on whether they have seen grobs created (and survive) supporting
any of a number of specified interfaces during their lifetime.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: brainstorming a really smart system engraver
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: 2014-08-28 1:40 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca: Hi all, I think that issue 3518 (pushed recently) does just this: https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3518 It doesn't do the automatic AI nightmare part. Yes, unfortunately... Yes, sorry - i should've trimmed quoted email better. However, it provides the low level machinery for pulling in the maximally required number of staves between automatic or manual line breaks, where the requirement is determined by working with keep-alive-interfaces and tags on the various staff variants. That could be helpful! I still need to wrap my head around how this framework/machinery works (or doesn’t) with true content-presentation separation; the example on the Google Code page has multiple \context Staff” calls buried in the \violins note definition, which to my mind mixes content with presentation in an unfortunate way. I think you looked at an earlier work-in-progress snippet - in the attachment you can find the final version. Which is still oversimplified: this is a regtest possibly pretending to be too much. The main problem with the regtest is that it typesets everything in two versions whereas a proper version should replace the single-staff variant with skips while the double-staff variant is known to win: it's not just saving unnecessary processing time, but there is no point in letting the larger horizontal space requirements of the single-staff variant determine line breaks in passages where the single-staff variant is known to be irrelevant. That's why I pointed to the different unisono/divisi issue's attachment which does a more thorough job. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: brainstorming a really smart system engraver
Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca writes: Hi all, I think that issue 3518 (pushed recently) does just this: https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3518 It doesn't do the automatic AI nightmare part. Yes, unfortunately... However, it provides the low level machinery for pulling in the maximally required number of staves between automatic or manual line breaks, where the requirement is determined by working with keep-alive-interfaces and tags on the various staff variants. That could be helpful! I still need to wrap my head around how this framework/machinery works (or doesn’t) with true content-presentation separation; the example on the Google Code page has multiple \context Staff” calls buried in the \violins note definition, which to my mind mixes content with presentation in an unfortunate way. The example attached to the last comment of the related issue URL:https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2779 goes a bit further towards creating an ad-hoc interface rather than just pulling the low-level levers. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: brainstorming a really smart system engraver
Hi all, The example attached to the last comment of the related issue URL:https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2779 goes a bit further towards creating an ad-hoc interface rather than just pulling the low-level levers. Thanks! This looks very good in the code… but I’ll have to wait for a binary to see how the output looks/works and really stress-test the feature, since i’m still on v2.19.12 at the moment. Best, Kieren. ___ Kieren MacMillan, composer www: http://www.kierenmacmillan.info email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
partcombine/divisi framework - let the fun begin!
Hi all,
I'm working on putting together a set of functions for handling parts
that split into multiple voices and/or staves (using functionality
David Kastrup implemented in
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3518). I attach a
first version and i'd be interested in your comments.
best,
Janek
\version 2.19.13
together = { \tag #'together ^\markup \bold a2 }
soloI =
#(define-music-function (parser location mus) (ly:music?)
#{
\tag #'together ^\markup \bold SoloI
\tag #'divI { #mus }
\tag #'together { #mus }
\tag #'divII #(mmrest-of-length mus)
#})
sharedStems =
#(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?)
#{
\tag divI { #m1 }
\tag divII { #m2 }
\tag together ^\markup \bold div
\tag together #m1 #m2
#})
voiceDivisi =
#(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?)
#{
\tag divI { #m1 }
\tag divII { #m2 }
\tag together { \dynamicUp #m1 } \\ { \dynamicDown #m2 }
#})
staffDivisi =
#(define-music-function (parser location m1 m2) (ly:music? ly:music?)
#{
\unset Staff.keepAliveInterfaces
\tag divI { #m1 }
\tag divII { #m2 }
\tag together #(skip-of-length m1)
\tag together #(skip-of-length m2)
\set Staff.keepAliveInterfaces = #'()
#})
divisibleStaff =
#(define-music-function (parser location name music) (string? ly:music?)
(let ((nameI (string-append name I))
(nameII (string-append name II)))
#{
\new GrandStaff \with {
\consists Keep_alive_together_engraver
}
\new Staff \with {
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-empty = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 1
keepAliveInterfaces = #'()
instrumentName = #nameI
shortInstrumentName = #nameI
}
\keepWithTag divI \music
\new Staff \with {
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-first = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-empty = ##t
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 1
keepAliveInterfaces = #'()
instrumentName = #nameII
shortInstrumentName = #nameII
}
\keepWithTag divII \music
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = #name
shortInstrumentName = #name
\override VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer = 2
}
\keepWithTag together \music
#}))
\version 2.19.13
\include definitions.ily
\layout {
short-indent = 2\cm
indent = 2\cm
line-width = 10\cm
}
music = {
\together
c'4 d' e' f'
\sharedStems
{ a' f' a' g' }
{ f' d' f' e' }
\voiceDivisi {
g' b' d' b'
d'' b' g' b'
}
{
g'4 e' g' e'
b' g' b' g'
}
\staffDivisi
{ a' f'' g' q b' }
{ a' e' b' e'' a' q }
\together
c' d' e' f'
\soloI { g' b' d' b' }
\together
f' a' d' f' f' a' e' g'
f' e' d' c'
}
\markup \bold { Violin I part: }
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = Violin I
shortInstrumentName = V I
} \keepWithTag divI \music
\markup \bold { Violin II part: }
\new Staff \with {
instrumentName = Violin II
shortInstrumentName = V II
} \keepWithTag divII \music
\markup \bold { Combined: }
\divisibleStaff Violin \music
example.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Context order
Hi list,
I'm wondering if there is a simple way to keep the PianoStaff at the bottom
of the vertical group, regardless of contexts being created / destroyed
above it.
Basically, I've created a ChoirStaff with non-simultaneous music and
grouped it with the PianoStaff:
ChoirStaff
{
First line of music
Next line of music
Third line of music
}
PianoStaff
{ All lines of music combined }
In the attached pdf, you'll see that the PianoStaff jumps to the top on the
second line when new contexts are created inside the ChoirStaff. Can I
force the PianoStaff to the bottom? I tried AlignBelowContext, but I think
that only works for lyrics.
I've attached a full (longer) example.
Samuel.
\score {
\new ChoirStaff
{
% First line - parts unison
\new Staff { c' c' c' c'}
\new Staff { a a a a }
% Second line - high parts split
\new ChoirStaff \with { systemStartDelimiter = #'SystemStartSquare }
\new Staff { g' g' g' g' }
\new Staff { c' c' c' c' }
\new Staff { a a a a }
% Third line - low parts split
\new ChoirStaff \with { systemStartDelimiter = #'SystemStartSquare }
\new Staff { g' g' g' g' }
\new Staff { c' c' c' c' }
\new ChoirStaff \with { systemStartDelimiter = #'SystemStartSquare }
\new Staff { a a a a }
\new Staff { f f f f }
}
\new PianoStaff
\new Dynamics { s1 \break s1 \break s1 \break }
\new Staff { c'4 c' c' c' | c' g' q q q | q q q q |}
\new Staff { a a a a | a a a a | f a q q q | }
\layout {
\context { \Staff
\RemoveEmptyStaves
}
}
}
scoretest.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Context order
Hi,
2014-08-28 19:21 GMT+02:00 Samuel Speer samuelsp...@gmail.com:
Hi list,
I'm wondering if there is a simple way to keep the PianoStaff at the bottom
of the vertical group, regardless of contexts being created / destroyed
above it.
Basically, I've created a ChoirStaff with non-simultaneous music and grouped
it with the PianoStaff:
ChoirStaff
{
First line of music
Next line of music
Third line of music
}
PianoStaff
{ All lines of music combined }
In the attached pdf, you'll see that the PianoStaff jumps to the top on the
second line when new contexts are created inside the ChoirStaff. Can I force
the PianoStaff to the bottom? I tried AlignBelowContext, but I think that
only works for lyrics.
AFAIK AlignBelow/AboveContext should work (but you may have to use it
on the other context, i.e. voices instead of the piano).
However, i think that you actually should use another approach for
what you're doing (i.e. not spawn new contexts when the voices split).
You may find thread How split SA staff into two staff - each now has
two voices? helpful for that. Interestingly, i have just a few
minutes ago started another discussion on this very topic, see
partcombine/divisi framework - let the fun begin! thread.
hth,
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: partcombine/divisi framework - let the fun begin!
2014-08-28 19:23 GMT+02:00 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com: I attach a first version and i'd be interested in your comments. PS this code requires LilyPond 2.19.13, which has not yet been released. Anyone wishing to try out the example should compile LilyPond from source; take a look at https://github.com/janek-warchol/cli-tools/blob/master/lilypond/intro-text.md https://github.com/janek-warchol/cli-tools/blob/master/lilypond/build-lily.sh for a user-friendly way of doing this. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
