\context + \set ineffective

[Dan Eble]

See comment.  I am currently working in the guts of the context code, so I 
could try to improve this while I’m there, but I would like to hear 
confirmation that it is a bug first.  Thanks.

\version "2.19.80" % the version I tested
\score {
  \new StaffGroup = "A" \with { shortInstrumentName = "XXX" } <<
\new StaffGroup = "B" {
  c'1

  %% I expected this to change shortInstrumentName in the
  %% StaffGroup with ID "A", but it does not appear to.
  \context StaffGroup = "A" {
\set StaffGroup.shortInstrumentName = "OK"
  }

  \break
  c'1
}
  >>
}

— 
Dan


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

Re: Possible regression with box-markup/rounded-box-markup

[Thomas Morley]

2018-04-16 1:03 GMT+02:00 Torsten Hämmerle :
> I've now started  #5307:Skyline Refinements (Rounded Boxes and Rotated
> Ellipses) 
>
> It also takes care of rotation issues (both boxes and ellipses) and even
> produces skylines with rounded corners.
>
> Special case: no rotation, small corner radius -> still uses one single and
> simple skyline box.
> This is particularly important for the most common and frequent rounded
> boxes: ledger lines.
>
> Current status:
> 
>
> All the best,
> Torsten

Hi Torsten,

great you're working on it.
I've already seen before/after images at sourceforge.
Very nice!

Thanks,
  Harm

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

Re: Possible regression with box-markup/rounded-box-markup

[Torsten Hämmerle]

I've now started  #5307:Skyline Refinements (Rounded Boxes and Rotated
Ellipses)   

It also takes care of rotation issues (both boxes and ellipses) and even
produces skylines with rounded corners.

Special case: no rotation, small corner radius -> still uses one single and
simple skyline box.
This is particularly important for the most common and frequent rounded
boxes: ledger lines.

Current status:
 

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: Stem lenght and ledger lines

[Torsten Hämmerle]

foxfanfare wrote
> You can see Lilypond does this for 8th and 16th notes, but not further by
> default!

This is sheer coincidence - LilyPond always (!) extends the stems to the
middle stave-line.
As soon as there are more than two flags, they obscure the ledger lines.

Moreover, cue size note stems should not even extend to the middle
stave-line but be a stave-space shorter, even when extended. Gould does not
mention that explicitly, but one can see it in her examples.

I'm going to create an issue (and incidentally have already created a patch
some time a go that still needs some testing for beams and tremolos).

Here's the current status showing cue notes in the lower staff and already
using Malte's new mega-flags:

 

All the best,
Torsten




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: Stem lenght and ledger lines

[Noeck]

> You can see Lilypond does this for 8th and 16th notes, but not further by
> default!

LilyPond treats all flags equally as it starts the stem from the middle
of the staff. That’s why the 8th and 16th flag don’t reach the ledger
lines. (This is no comment on the actual issue which seems to be
extremely rare in the scores I have.)

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Stem lenght and ledger lines

[foxfanfare]

Sorry I thought I posted this one in the bug report subforum...



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Stem lenght and ledger lines

[foxfanfare]

Quote from Gould's book: The outer stave-lines must be clearly visible; tails
closer to noteheades will obscure ledger lines

\version "2.19.80"
\relative c' {

  \cadenzaOn
  \omit Score.TimeSignature  
  \autoBeamOff  
  e''8 e16 e32 a64 
}

You can see Lilypond does this for 8th and 16th notes, but not further by
default!

Manual corrected version:

\version "2.19.80"
\relative c' {

  \cadenzaOn
  \omit Score.TimeSignature  
  \autoBeamOff  
  e''8 e16 
  \override Stem #'length-fraction = #(magstep 2.75) 
  e32 
  \override Stem #'length-fraction = #(magstep 4.25) 
  a64
} 



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Bugs-f58488.html

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

Re: balloonGrobText for ledger lines

[James Lowe]

Werner,

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 23:10:08 +0200 (CEST), Werner LEMBERG  wrote:

> 
> > [lilypond be08490329a22423bb2a723eea7a5cd33f3a42d8]
> > 
> > I was just about asking on the user list how to get a balloon text
> > for a ledger line (apparently, it's not possible); while preparing a
> > MWE I found out that the following crashes lilypond:
> > 
> >   \new Staff \with {
> > \consists "Balloon_engraver"
> >   } {
> > \balloonGrobText #'LedgerLineSpanner #'(1 . 0.5)
> >   \markup "ledger line"
> > a''16
> >   }
> 
> Exactly the same happens if I replace `LedgerLineSpanner' with `Beam'.
> 
> 
> Werner

https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5306/

Thanks

James

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

Re: crash during musicxml2ly

[James Lowe]

Hello Frederic,

On Sat, 14 Apr 2018 09:42:20 +, Frédéric Gohier  
wrote:

> hello,
> 
> I face a crash when run the command line :
> /usr/local/bin/musicxml2ly --nd --nrp --npl --no-beaming -m 
> MusicXMLV2_from_sibelius7.xml
> 
> the traceback is :
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/usr/local/bin/musicxml2ly", line 3277, in 
> main()
>   File "/usr/local/bin/musicxml2ly", line 3271, in main
> voices = convert(filename, options)
>   File "/usr/local/bin/musicxml2ly", line 3157, in convert
> update_score_setup(score, part_list, voices, parts)
>   File "/usr/local/bin/musicxml2ly", line 3027, in update_score_setup
> score_structure.set_part_information(part_id, staves_info)
>   File "/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.21.0/python/musicexp.py", line 2351, in 
> set_part_information
> self.contents.set_part_information (part_id, staves_info)
>   File "/usr/local/share/lilypond/2.21.0/python/musicexp.py", line 2135, in 
> set_part_information
> c.set_part_information (part_name, staves_info)
> AttributeError: PartGroupInfo instance has no attribute 'set_part_information'
> 
> I correct this issue by modifying
> 
>   *   in file git/python/musicexp.py :
>   *   in class StaffGroup :
>   *   in function set_part_information :
> 
> def set_part_information (self, part_name, staves_info):
> if part_name == self.id:
> self.part_information = staves_info
> else:
> for c in self.children:
> +if hasattr(c, 'set_part_information'):
> +c.set_part_information (part_name, staves_info)
> -c.set_part_information (part_name, staves_info)
> 
> 
> I don't know the process to validate and don't remember the process to push a 
> modification on git server.
> please can you help me ?
> 
> 

I can.

You cannot push a modification directly to our git repo until the LilyPond 
developers have reviewed and tested your patch. We use Rietveld for patch 
review and we always need an issue for any patch submitted via Source Forge 
that does not already have an issue against the problem you are trying to fix - 
Allura is our Issue Tracker.

A high level summary is here

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor-big-page#summary-for-experienced-developers

If you intend on contributing more I suggest you read the relevant information 
in the Contributor's Guide which tells you how the entire process works.

If you do not want to follow the process, you can at least submit a git 
formatted patch against current master to the bug email list. Current master is 
found here:

https://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git

One of us may be able to start the process of testing and submit the patch for 
review to the rest of the development team.

But we would prefer it if you did try to at least submit your own patch via 
Rietveld if nothing else. 

Thank you.

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