Paul, do you have a backup of lilypondblog.org?
I might try converting it to a static site generator and host it on
some free platform.
On Fri, Nov 12 2021 at 22:12:33 -0700, Abraham Lee
wrote:
Hey, LP team!
I went to the LP website and saw a link in the "Pondings" section
that said
that
On 2021-11-12 5:57 pm, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
so I again (perhaps naïvely) hope that
\time \note-denom 3/4
and
\time \note-denom #'(3 . 4)
could both work.
As David said, those are precisely the same thing. A fraction is one of
the primitive tokens our lexer presents to the parser.
Hey, LP team!
I went to the LP website and saw a link in the "Pondings" section that said
that lilypondblog.org was live! I wondered if something had come up that
brought it back and clicked on the link only to learn that the address is
now a gambling site. So, not exactly the kind of impression w
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jean Abou Samra
> To: Kieren MacMillan , Flaming Hakama by
> Elaine
> Cc: LilyPond development , David Kastrup <
> d...@gnu.org>
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 23:49:13 +0100
> Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
>
>
>
> Humans
Hi Aaron,
> Do you mean for \note-denom to be able to support both standard fraction
> (4/4) as well as the number-duration (3 2.)?
To my mind, the goal, ultimately, is for the user to do the least work possible
to (e.g.) enable note-denominator time signatures on a pre-existing score,
which m
On 2021-11-12 5:34 pm, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Aaron,
you might write a helper function:
\time \foo 4 4.
Ah! That idea certainly appeals to me much more than a brand new
separate function. Would
\time \note-denom 4/4
be possible without parser-fiddling?
Do you mean for \note-denom to
Hi Aaron,
> you might write a helper function:
> \time \foo 4 4.
Ah! That idea certainly appeals to me much more than a brand new separate
function. Would
\time \note-denom 4/4
be possible without parser-fiddling?
> It's a little better; but with proper parser support, a number-duration
>
On 2021-11-12 5:03 pm, David Kastrup wrote:
Kieren MacMillan writes:
At that point, the only issue is to turn
\time #'(4 . "4.")
into an number num and a *duration* (not number) denom… which again
doesn’t required parser-fiddling, correct?
Utterly incorrect. #'(4 . "4.") does not consu
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hello all (especially List Admin?!),
>
> I must give some context for the following comment:
>
>> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Kieren MacMillan
>> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
>
> Going to the list
On 2021-11-12 4:22 pm, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
except that the Scheme expressions
'("4" . ("4" "8"))
and
'("4" "4" "8")
are entirely equivalent
Well that’s inconvenient (and somewhat confusing/unintuitive).
When you consider how lists are represented in Scheme, this is entirely
expected.
A
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi Jean,
>
>> A unified \time command is
>> not trivial to achieve from a parsing perspective. If the
>> syntax of the argument is "4/4.", there is work to be done
>> in the parser to let it accept it. "4 4." is feasible with
>> a separate function, but I am pretty sure
Hi David,
> If it becomes impossible to see what the author actually wants
> because there is so much overlap in how the arguments
> could be interpreted, where is the advantage?
I agree 100%.
But that doesn’t lead inevitably to your implied conclusion that such a
function can’t exist — in a ro
Hi all,
[David K:]
> It's not like I haven't voiced that opinion before, so I have no idea
> how I could contribute towards you considering this question resolved.
Well, as per my “List Behaviour” email, this is the first time I’ve heard your
opinion voiced, due to some interwebs vagary… =)
So
Hello all (especially List Admin?!),
I must give some context for the following comment:
> On Nov 12, 2021, at 10:41 AM, Kieren MacMillan
> wrote:
> Hi all,
> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
Going to the list archive, I now see that there were many
Hi Jean,
> I am not entirely comfortable with
> \time #'(4 . 4)
> and
> \time #'(4 . "4")
> doing so different things
Those would do the same thing, no? Those should both give the equivalent of
\time 4/4
only that they would take different routes to get there.
> Also, how do you integrate
>
Le 12/11/2021 à 22:31, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
Hi Jean,
A unified \time command is
not trivial to achieve from a parsing perspective. If the
syntax of the argument is "4/4.", there is work to be done
in the parser to let it accept it. "4 4." is feasible with
a separate function, but I am p
Hi Jean,
> A unified \time command is
> not trivial to achieve from a parsing perspective. If the
> syntax of the argument is "4/4.", there is work to be done
> in the parser to let it accept it. "4 4." is feasible with
> a separate function, but I am pretty sure it isn't with
> a unified music fu
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Kieren MacMillan
> To: LilyPond development
> Cc: Aaron Hill , Dan Eble
> Bcc:
> Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2021 10:41:46 -0500
> Subject: Re: TimeSignature with note in denominator
> Hi all,
>
> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this di
Le 12/11/2021 à 16:41, Kieren MacMillan a écrit :
Hi all,
I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
Assuming I’m not:
1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective* would be
to have a single public interface
\time BLAH FOO BAR et
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi all,
>
> I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
>
> Assuming I’m not:
>
> 1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective*
> would be to have a single public interface
>
>\time BLAH FOO BAR etc.
>
> whic
Hi all,
I’m not sure whether I’m waiting for others to move this discussion forward…?
Assuming I’m not:
1. In *my* mind, the optimal situation *from the user/UI perspective* would be
to have a single public interface
\time BLAH FOO BAR etc.
which would gracefully and transparently handle a
Le 11/11/2021 à 23:27, Thomas Morley a écrit :
Looks like it was much more work than expected...
To be honest, it could have taken a one-line
patch to correct the test case on the issue.
I did not go that route because I knew it
would fail in more subtle cases, and I wanted
the effort of under
22 matches
Mail list logo
