Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread David Kastrup 
Chris Yate  writes:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>>
>> That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
>> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
>> even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
>> already) are of course welcome:
>
>
> David,
>
> At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on
> earth it seems to want to build *everything*.

It wants to be _able_ to build everything, like autoconf.

> A Lilypond build tool for all platforms = a great idea.
> A Lilypond build tool for all platforms to which someone's added half a
> dozen extra unrelated targets (possibly very large ones such as OpenOffice)
> = a terrible idea.

You don't need to touch or maintain or use the OpenOffice rules.

> If I did anything to "fix" it, it would be to strip it right back to a
> tool that does _one_ job well. And I don't know whether that's likely
> to be popular thing (although correct me if I'm wrong there)...

I don't see the point.  It won't build OpenOffice unless you ask it to.

> ... because IMHO a build tool that takes 24+ hours to rebuild after
> making tweaks to it --and that's on a high spec machine-- is not a
> very useful tool.

You'll find that none of the 24+ hours are spent in relation to
OpenOffice.  The OpenOffice configuration affects the download size of
GUB, but that's a one-time cost and rather small.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 23:05 Chris Yate  wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>>
>> That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
>> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
>> even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
>> already) are of course welcome:
>
>
> David,
>
> At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on
> earth it seems to want to build *everything*. ...
>

All this said, it looks like the task of slimming it down for one's own
preferred build configurations (in my case, mingw builds, and with a custom
lilypond git repo) is simply a case of changing some definitions in the
Makefile(s).

That probably is not too troublesome for anyone that's confident to start
hacking something like Lilypond in the first place...

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:

>
> That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
> compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
> even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
> already) are of course welcome:


David,

At a brief look over GUB, the really big question in my mind is why on
earth it seems to want to build *everything*.

A Lilypond build tool for all platforms = a great idea.
A Lilypond build tool for all platforms to which someone's added half a
dozen extra unrelated targets (possibly very large ones such as OpenOffice)
= a terrible idea.

If I did anything to "fix" it, it would be to strip it right back to a tool
that does _one_ job well. And I don't know whether that's likely to be
popular thing (although correct me if I'm wrong there)...

... because IMHO a build tool that takes 24+ hours to rebuild after making
tweaks to it --and that's on a high spec machine-- is not a very useful
tool.

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
On 26 Sep 2016 20:16, "Phil Holmes"  wrote:
>
> TBH, you'd probably find it far easier to install a Linux VM on your
Windows host, and compile the problematic score on that.  I've done both,
and what I suggest here is what I would do.

That's exactly what I've done - I do a lot of my day job with Virtual
Machines. But...
... I generally use Frescobaldi as an IDE for Lilypond work - and that
works very much better in Windows (better integration with midi, pdf viewer
as well as printers etc.), and there's available installers for the latest
versions. Ubuntu's packaged version is ancient, and the one I built has all
sorts of problems.

That said, it is almost certainly the path of least resistance to fix
Frescobaldi on Linux than fix Lilypond in Windows!!

> I also used Sibelius - for my college course.  I always now use LilyPond
in preference.

IMO, Lilypond produces somewhat better looking output (with at least a
little care), and as a software engineer I really rate being able to
source-control my files properly. Everything's in git...

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: tuplet stats

2016-09-26 Thread Simon Albrecht 

On 26.09.2016 04:55, David Kastrup wrote:

Carl Sorensen  writes:


On 9/25/16, 2:46 PM, "Simon Albrecht"  wrote:


On 25.09.2016 22:06, Trevor Daniels wrote:

When needed, isn't this adequate?

\version "2.19.48"
triplet = \tuplet 3/2 \etc
\triplet { a'4 a' a' }

That¹s what I meant by ‘implementation is a no-brainer’ :-)
Best, Simon

I¹m generally opposed to syntactic sugar.  It tends to hide behavior that
is important to know to move beyond the basics.


I also proposed the change because I think this is easy to grasp and 
document: At the _end_ of the section on \tuplet, one can add a remark 
that \tuplet 3/2 may be written as \triplet. So everybody will be well 
aware that \triplet is \tuplet 3/2 and cannot be used for anything like 3/5.



\triplet saves very little input, it does not actually cover all
triplets (like the rare 3/5 triplets) and it does not generalize well to
things like quintuplets which can really be 5/4 or 5/3 depending on
metre.


It’s just that \tuplet 3/2 is the most common form by magnitudes. I 
daresay 3/5 might be like 1000 times less common, but that may be due to 
the repertoire I’m working on. At any rate I don’t think it’s going to 
cause any confusion.



So I'm a bit meh on it even though I don't consider it GLISSful.  Its
cost is small but I don't see it as overly helpful either.  But then I
am writing on a US keyboard layout where 3/2 can be typed with 3 key
strokes and no modifiers (Shift, AltGr or whatever).


For me (German neo2 layout) it’s 6 key strokes (Mod4+. Mod3+i Mod4+,) 
[1], but whether it’s 3, 4 or 6 key strokes doesn’t really matter so 
much. Let me give an example: In my current project I have a section 
where many bars look like this:

b \tuplet 3/2 { a'4 g8 }
And with many instances of \tuplet 3/2 it does reduce typing and visual 
clutter to just have \triplet instead (which can also be autocompleted).


Now I might just write
triplet = \tuplet 3/2 \etc
in a library file of mine, but for once I like to keep such private 
syntax at minimum level to simplify sharing code, and I thought that it 
might help others as well.


Best, Simon

[1] That sounds terrible, but normally the layout is extremely handy 
(well, for German text more so than for English…), especially for 
Lilypond code, since all the \/{}[]<> and numbers are very easy to type.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Phil Holmes 
TBH, you'd probably find it far easier to install a Linux VM on your Windows 
host, and compile the problematic score on that.  I've done both, and what I 
suggest here is what I would do.

I also used Sibelius - for my college course.  I always now use LilyPond in 
preference.

--
Phil Holmes


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Yate 
  To: David Kastrup 
  Cc: Phil Holmes ; Lilypond-User Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 7:48 PM
  Subject: Re: Question: Cross compilation


  On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:

Chris Yate  writes:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that
> it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
> better solution.

If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free
software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really
big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might
want to look how they are doing it.



  Thanks David. If the answer to my question is "no, there's no other way", 
that's still a useful answer! :) 



  To be fair, I think the projects that do work across many systems are usually 
not using C++, but some other language that's more portable. Probably something 
interpreted, or running on a VM.  And of course, Lilypond has a bunch of 
dependencies, TexMf, Guile and the like, which may be more of a portability 
problem than /our/ code. 


In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the same time as
other releases and require no extra manual effort (until things go
wrong, of course). That's pretty good, actually. 

  Agreed! 


Not being able to do native/online compilations by anybody wanting to is 
bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly even just to its information/documentation, 
maybe it _can_ do it already) are of course welcome


  GUB is a really good idea. But obviously it's not great having to compile the 
whole thing to change a source repository... If its authors followed the 
mentality of Gnu autoconf tools, you'd expect to be able to pass some arguments 
in. I'll look into it a little. 

  Chris


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread David Kastrup 
Chris Yate  writes:

> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:
>
>> Chris Yate  writes:
>>
>> > Hi Phil,
>> >
>> > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but
>> that
>> > it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
>> > better solution.
>>
>> If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free
>> software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really
>> big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might
>> want to look how they are doing it.
>>
>
> Thanks David. If the answer to my question is "no, there's no other way",
> that's still a useful answer! :)
>
> To be fair, I think the projects that do work across many systems are
> usually not using C++, but some other language that's more portable.

LilyPond and its utilities use C++, Guile (both as standalone executable
and as one of _many_ libraries), Ghostscript, Python, Shell scripts and
probably a few other things.

C++ alone is not all that hard, except that it does not buy you an
installer.

> Probably something interpreted, or running on a VM.  And of course,
> Lilypond has a bunch of dependencies, TexMf, Guile and the like, which
> may be more of a portability problem than /our/ code.

Maybe, maybe not, but it adds up.  That's what I meant with "a number of
free software compile- and runtime dependencies".

> GUB is a really good idea. But obviously it's not great having to
> compile the whole thing to change a source repository... If its
> authors followed the mentality of Gnu autoconf tools, you'd expect to
> be able to pass some arguments in. I'll look into it a little.

It may well be possible, but I don't really know myself where to get a
good roadmap.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:34 David Kastrup  wrote:

> Chris Yate  writes:
>
> > Hi Phil,
> >
> > Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but
> that
> > it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
> > better solution.
>
> If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free
> software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really
> big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might
> want to look how they are doing it.
>

Thanks David. If the answer to my question is "no, there's no other way",
that's still a useful answer! :)

To be fair, I think the projects that do work across many systems are
usually not using C++, but some other language that's more portable.
Probably something interpreted, or running on a VM.  And of course,
Lilypond has a bunch of dependencies, TexMf, Guile and the like, which may
be more of a portability problem than /our/ code.

In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the same time as
> other releases and require no extra manual effort (until things go
> wrong, of course). That's pretty good, actually.


Agreed!

Not being able to do native/online compilations by anybody wanting to is
> bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly even just to its
> information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it already) are of course
> welcome


GUB is a really good idea. But obviously it's not great having to compile
the whole thing to change a source repository... If its authors followed
the mentality of Gnu autoconf tools, you'd expect to be able to pass some
arguments in. I'll look into it a little.

Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread David Kastrup 
Chris Yate  writes:

> Hi Phil,
>
> Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that
> it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
> better solution.

If you can find _any_ free software project requiring a number of free
software compile- and runtime dependencies that does not invest a really
big amount of time into maintaining a separate Windows port, you might
want to look how they are doing it.

But in my experience, stuff like Git are typical: the Windows port lags
several versions behind, is separately maintained with a lot of effort
by separate volunteers (who get rather gruff over time), and is of mixed
quality.

In contrast, the LilyPond Windows releases appear at the same time as
other releases and require no extra manual effort (until things go
wrong, of course).

That's pretty good, actually.  Not being able to do native/online
compilations by anybody wanting to is bad.  Yes.  Fixes to GUB (possibly
even just to its information/documentation, maybe it _can_ do it
already) are of course welcome: we have pretty low active expertise on
its innards on the list, and those who use it for building releases
mostly drive on autopilot.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
Hi Phil,

Sigh... Yes, that's basically the conclusion I'd already come to, but that
it seemed such a ludicrous state of affairs that _somebody_ must have a
better solution.

I've just installed mingw on Ubuntu, which might possibly do the job...

At the moment my scores have a habit of crashing at line 1180 in
page-breaking.cc when an assertion is thrown; that only happens under
Windows. And I reckon I can now see why it hasn't been investigated
seriously by anyone!! (although it's possible it could be an issue with one
of Lilypond's library dependencies.).

It should not be so difficult to work on open source stuff on any platform.
And it's not Microsoft's fault, presumably a lack of demand... (I'm not
blaming anybody here, by the way.)  In terms of the time I've wasted, I'm
fairly seriously considering that I might buy Sibelius and be done
with it. Given
that most of my colleagues in music expect me to be able to send them .sib
files to share, it's probably inevitable. Shame.

Chris




On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 at 19:10 Phil Holmes  wrote:

> Gub uses http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git as its source.  I
> know of no way of changing that without a lot of effort changing its
> codebase.  I personally know of no simple way of cross-compiling LilyPond
> for Windows without using Gub as the tool.  However, you can (in principle)
> create your own branch on Savannah and use Gub to compile against that (see
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/log/?h=dev/philh for an
> example of something I'm trying to debug at present).  You'll need a big
> old machine or a lot of patience to get it working - I occasionally have
> compile time of the order of 24 hours on a Core i7 quad core system.
>
> HTH
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Chris Yate 
> *To:* Lilypond-User Mailing List 
> *Sent:* Monday, September 26, 2016 6:54 PM
> *Subject:* Question: Cross compilation
>
> Hi all,
>
> Apologies for the potentially "blindingly obvious" question, bu't having
> read the devel webpages about compiling Lilypond for mingw/Windows, I'm
> none the wiser.
>
> I can compile for native linux using the gnu make (via the
> smart-autoconf.sh script). However, I'm trying to track down a crash in
> Windows, and according to the website/docs it's impossible to compile
> natively* -- so need a cross-compile.
>
> I note the existance of "GUB", but this appears to use the main repository
> as source**. But obviously, I need to compile from my working copy after
> I've put a bunch of tracing code in.
>
> This document
> http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/src/Developers/Packaging/windows.html 
> appears
> to be out of date. I found "janneke"'s patches at
> http://lilypond.org/people/janneke/software/cygwin/mknetrel/ but it's not
> clear from where mknetrel itself should be obtained.
>
> My dev environment is Ubuntu 16 (or 14). Any hints or tips or redirection
> towards the relevant instructions would be welcome!
>
> Chris
>
> ---
>
> * assuming the statement about compiling natively under Windows _does_not_
> refer to using mingw gnu make, rather than some other compiler...??
>
> ** I'm not sure about that; but in any case it fails at configuring
> mingw::fontconfig so that may be the first problem to solve. Error below
> ---
> .
> configure: error: Package requirements (freetype2) were not met:
>
> Package zlib was not found in the pkg-config search path.
> Perhaps you should add the directory containing `zlib.pc'
> to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
> Package 'zlib', required by 'FreeType 2', not found
> 
>
>
>
> --
>
> ___
> 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: Extracting symbol location

2016-09-26 Thread David Nalesnik 
Hi Lukas,

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Lukas Tuggener  wrote:
> Dear All
>
> To create labeled training data for a machine learning project, I need to
> extract the location at which symbols are printed. Is it possible to extract
> coordinates for every symbol? Methods which reveal the position of one
> symbol at a time would also already help a lot (e.g. control which symbol
> will be printed at the exact center)
>
> I am aware that similar questions have been asked have been asked in the
> past. But those are pretty old, so I am hoping that there has been some
> development in this area.
> (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2007-05/msg00142.html)
>

The link you cite mentions looking at SVG output, and I suppose that
would be the best way.  I can't think of another method to get the
actual print positions of objects.

I can't help with processing the SVG output to get the information you
want (a bounding box for each element?), but the attached file might
help with preparing an interpretable file.

Objects aren't assigned a unique id by default.  The attached tries to
do this.  Hopefully, the information included (grob name, moment,
horizontal and vertical coordinates) is sufficient.  The coordinates
used in the ID aren't the print position -- they are relative to the
system on which the grob is found, for one thing.  I include them to
distinguish between the note heads in a chord, which obviously occur
at the same time (moment).

There's a patch being reviewed which replaces the 'id property with
'output-properties and this will need to be updated accordingly
(https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4974/).

Hope this helps,
David
\version "2.19.46"

% angle brackets cause SVG error so reformat:
% # becomes [Mom 1]
#(define (reformat-moment mom)
   (let* ((mom (format #f "~a" mom))
  (mom (string-drop mom 2))
  (mom (string-drop-right mom 1)))
 (string-concatenate (list "[" mom "]"

% grob name + absolute moment + (system) coordinates should be enough for a unique id...
#(define (get-unique-id grob)
   (let ((sys (ly:grob-system grob)))
 (format #f "~a/~a,(~a,~a)"
   (grob::name grob)
   (reformat-moment (grob::when grob))
   (ly:grob-relative-coordinate grob sys X)
   (ly:grob-relative-coordinate grob sys Y

assignIDs =
#(let ((grob-names (map car all-grob-descriptions)))
   #{
 #@(map (lambda (x)#{ \override #(list 'Score x 'id) = #get-unique-id #})
 grob-names)
   #})


{
  \assignIDs
  a1
  \break
  a
  \break
  a
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Phil Holmes 
Gub uses http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git as its source.  I know 
of no way of changing that without a lot of effort changing its codebase.  I 
personally know of no simple way of cross-compiling LilyPond for Windows 
without using Gub as the tool.  However, you can (in principle) create your own 
branch on Savannah and use Gub to compile against that (see 
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/log/?h=dev/philh for an example 
of something I'm trying to debug at present).  You'll need a big old machine or 
a lot of patience to get it working - I occasionally have compile time of the 
order of 24 hours on a Core i7 quad core system.

HTH

--
Phil Holmes


  - Original Message - 
  From: Chris Yate 
  To: Lilypond-User Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 6:54 PM
  Subject: Question: Cross compilation


  Hi all,


  Apologies for the potentially "blindingly obvious" question, bu't having read 
the devel webpages about compiling Lilypond for mingw/Windows, I'm none the 
wiser.


  I can compile for native linux using the gnu make (via the smart-autoconf.sh 
script). However, I'm trying to track down a crash in Windows, and according to 
the website/docs it's impossible to compile natively* -- so need a 
cross-compile.


  I note the existance of "GUB", but this appears to use the main repository as 
source**. But obviously, I need to compile from my working copy after I've put 
a bunch of tracing code in. 

  This document 
http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/src/Developers/Packaging/windows.html 
appears to be out of date. I found "janneke"'s patches at 
http://lilypond.org/people/janneke/software/cygwin/mknetrel/ but it's not clear 
from where mknetrel itself should be obtained. 



  My dev environment is Ubuntu 16 (or 14). Any hints or tips or redirection 
towards the relevant instructions would be welcome!


  Chris


  ---


  * assuming the statement about compiling natively under Windows _does_not_ 
refer to using mingw gnu make, rather than some other compiler...??


  ** I'm not sure about that; but in any case it fails at configuring 
mingw::fontconfig so that may be the first problem to solve. Error below
  ---
  .

  configure: error: Package requirements (freetype2) were not met:


  Package zlib was not found in the pkg-config search path.
  Perhaps you should add the directory containing `zlib.pc'
  to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
  Package 'zlib', required by 'FreeType 2', not found
  








--


  ___
  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

Question: Cross compilation

2016-09-26 Thread Chris Yate 
Hi all,

Apologies for the potentially "blindingly obvious" question, bu't having
read the devel webpages about compiling Lilypond for mingw/Windows, I'm
none the wiser.

I can compile for native linux using the gnu make (via the
smart-autoconf.sh script). However, I'm trying to track down a crash in
Windows, and according to the website/docs it's impossible to compile
natively* -- so need a cross-compile.

I note the existance of "GUB", but this appears to use the main repository
as source**. But obviously, I need to compile from my working copy after
I've put a bunch of tracing code in.

This document
http://www.gnu.org/software/lilypond/src/Developers/Packaging/windows.html
appears
to be out of date. I found "janneke"'s patches at
http://lilypond.org/people/janneke/software/cygwin/mknetrel/ but it's not
clear from where mknetrel itself should be obtained.

My dev environment is Ubuntu 16 (or 14). Any hints or tips or redirection
towards the relevant instructions would be welcome!

Chris

---

* assuming the statement about compiling natively under Windows _does_not_
refer to using mingw gnu make, rather than some other compiler...??

** I'm not sure about that; but in any case it fails at configuring
mingw::fontconfig so that may be the first problem to solve. Error below
---
.
configure: error: Package requirements (freetype2) were not met:

Package zlib was not found in the pkg-config search path.
Perhaps you should add the directory containing `zlib.pc'
to the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable
Package 'zlib', required by 'FreeType 2', not found

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Access/address arbitrary grobs' coordinates from event function

2016-09-26 Thread Urs Liska 
Hi all,

in order to improve the multi-segment slurs I would like to know if it
is possible to get information about arbitrary grobs from within an
event function.

Concretely I would like to know if there's a way to get hold of the
coordinates (anchor points) of an arbitrary other grob from within a
function defined as "define-event-function".

I would like to somehow "tag" the other grob in the input file in order
to get and keep some kind of "handle" to it and then access its
coordinates in an event function. The idea is to be able to define the
inflection point of a multi-segment slur relative to one or more other
items on the page. For example between two notes. Anchoring such complex
slurs on other items like notes or stems or beams will significantly
increase the chance that changes in layout may keep the slur intact.

My question is: is there a way to get the necessary information at the
right processing stage. I see that when saving some values in a music-
or scheme-function this is available in the event-function of the
compound slur. But probably it's not possible to retrieve the
positioning data at that point yet.

Any pointers?

TIA
Urs


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: 2.19.48 on Mac OS 10.11

2016-09-26 Thread Thomas Scharkowski 

 Original-Nachricht 

From an unsecured network, out of town…
Had hopes for 2.19.48 but if anything, it is even slower on Mac OS 10.11.6 than 
was 2.19.47. Have to revert (again) to 2.19.46. From what I’ve read, my 
experience is not unique. Shouldn’t this be noted on the web page?

I’ll help any way I can when I return home.

Stan


2.19.48 is also slow here (didn't test 2.19.47) - reverted to 2.19.46!

Thomas







___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user