Rep: ScholarLY - introduction and call for collaboration

2015-01-30 Thread Philippe Massart 

 
 It turns out that custom annotation types were not properly handled. 
 \annotate looks up the LaTeX value in an alist dictionary, and for custom 
 annotations this simply returned #f.
 
 Pushed a fix, should work now.
 Thanks for the report.
 
 Best
 Urs

Thanks :-)

I still have an issue on the example file, on the custom annotation, with this 
message:

./annotate.annotations.inp:15: Undefined control sequence.
argument See \textbackslash what is \possible 
[opts]{args}
l.15 {custom-annotation}


Something else I noted: the lilypond code in the custom annotation is 
transformed into a LilyPond Music tag in the .inp file. Is that normal?

Philippe

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

Re: Rep: ScholarLY - introduction and call for collaboration

2015-01-30 Thread Urs Liska 


Am 30.01.2015 um 21:50 schrieb Philippe Massart:




It turns out that custom annotation types were not properly handled. 
\annotate looks up the LaTeX value in an alist dictionary, and for 
custom annotations this simply returned #f.


Pushed a fix, should work now.
Thanks for the report.

Best
Urs


Thanks :-)

I still have an issue on the example file, on the custom annotation, 
with this message:


./annotate.annotations.inp:15: Undefined control sequence.
argument See \textbackslash what is \possible
  [opts]{args}
l.15 {custom-annotation}



OK, this is stupid.
I used that example property to show what is possible in that LaTeX 
code is exported verbatim. But I didn't think about the fact that this 
example code is nonsense. Of course \possible is an Undefined control 
sequence ...

I think I should have given that example document slightly more care ...

I've updated to a more straightforward command. Thank you for reporting.



Something else I noted: the lilypond code in the custom annotation is 
transformed into a LilyPond Music tag in the .inp file. Is that normal?


I don't know if that's the ultimate solution but it's intended. As I 
wrote the properties can digest any single Scheme/LilyPond expression 
including music. But if I wouldn't alter it the whole Scheme 
representation would be printed, and that is something one generally 
wouldn't want to do. There will have to be some ways to produce actual 
*music* from it (i.e. an engraved score fragment) but for now I think 
this is the best compromise. (For time signatures I managed to intercept 
them and print a meaningful result, but the other music types just were 
too complex for that.


Best
Urs



Philippe



___
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: Rep: ScholarLY - introduction and call for collaboration

2015-01-30 Thread Philippe Massart 
 
 
 I still have an issue on the example file, on the custom annotation, with 
 this message:
 
 ./annotate.annotations.inp:15: Undefined control sequence.
 argument See \textbackslash what is \possible 
 [opts]{args}
 l.15 {custom-annotation}
 
 
 OK, this is stupid.
 I used that example property to show what is possible in that LaTeX code is 
 exported verbatim. But I didn't think about the fact that this example code 
 is nonsense. Of course \possible is an Undefined control sequence ...
 I think I should have given that example document slightly more care ...
 
 I've updated to a more straightforward command. Thank you for reporting.
 
 
 Something else I noted: the lilypond code in the custom annotation is 
 transformed into a LilyPond Music tag in the .inp file. Is that normal?
 
 I don't know if that's the ultimate solution but it's intended. As I wrote 
 the properties can digest any single Scheme/LilyPond expression including 
 music. But if I wouldn't alter it the whole Scheme representation would be 
 printed, and that is something one generally wouldn't want to do. There will 
 have to be some ways to produce actual *music* from it (i.e. an engraved 
 score fragment) but for now I think this is the best compromise. (For time 
 signatures I managed to intercept them and print a meaningful result, but the 
 other music types just were too complex for that.
 
 Best
 Urs

Thanks, it’s clearer now :-)

And yes, « actual » music will be another interesting step.

In a few month, a friend of mine will work on a critical edition; I plan to use 
that work to make a LaTeX + LilyPond version and test ScholarLY.

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