On 10/08/2012 01:03 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Actually, thinking of it, it would actually be quite simple to calculate the
displayed fraction with durations from the given durations and the tuplet
fraction (except that there is no way to distinguish 3:2 and 4:6).
(m*dur1):(n*dur2) = tuplet
On 10/07/2012 01:22 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
I'd rephrase the first two sentences as
This version contains work in progress. Only users who are prepared to
deal with crashes or unexpected ...
+1
I think this is the best way to characterize it. You might want to rephrase it
slightly to
On 10/08/2012 01:29 PM, James wrote:
I have the good fortune to play with
semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
but 'no one really does' and besides when do you stop calling them
their numerically
On 10/08/2012 10:44 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
First, we shouldn't mix content and presentation. I think it's a very
important rule; one of the best things in LilyPond is that she allows
to separate music from its layout.
Yes, fair point. But one thing to be careful of particularly as regards
On 10/08/2012 11:25 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:
But once I saw a bigband-part for guitar, notated with changing clefs
between bass and treble.
Well, it was the real treble, no transposition. That it was the real
treble was only understandable from the context.
The real stupidity there is surely
On 10/09/2012 01:12 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Absolutely! Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason
for inventing it, IIRC.
Woah, really? I thought the whole point was to avoid the
confusion between \time and
On 10/07/2012 05:04 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
The design was deliberately restricted to providing
shorthands for the \times commands with 2:3 and 3:2 ratios expressed in
the n/m rational parameter, however there seemed to be a feeling that
the 5:4 ratio was just as common. (See 6. above).
Yes, it
On 10/07/2012 11:29 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=482
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=817
I implemented those functions for MusicXML import. Note, however, that lilypond
does not automatically use those, you have to manually set them as shown in the
On 10/07/2012 11:52 PM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
There is, however, no check whether the fraction with the durations makes
sense and matches the real tuplet (in most cases, itwill not).
Yes, that's what I mean. I'd like to see something where the fractions and
durations are all derived from
On 10/08/2012 12:40 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I diasagree. Whether or not you we provide separate commands actually
doing the overrides, the choice between all those variants does not
appear to convey musical information individually but just constitutes a
different choice of consistent notation
On 10/06/2012 11:34 AM, James wrote:
How is a web interface easier than email to enter information?
Well, the problem with simple doc patches is that to submit them to Lilypond you
have to go through the same procedure as if you were submitting a code patch,
which means uploading to Riedveld
On 10/05/2012 09:31 AM, Keith OHara wrote:
It is easier to keep the order straight if you write a 5:4 tuplet
as \tuplet 5/4 {}
Is there any reason why you couldn't write \tuplet 5:4 {} ... ? Keeps exact
match between musical and Lilypond syntax and avoids the potential mental block
of
On 10/06/2012 04:46 PM, James wrote:
Says someone who evidently has never built, submitted or tested 'doc'
patches for LP.
Er ... yes, I have. Actually my objections to having to use git-cl were based
on my experience of trying to submit a simple, small doc patch that I'd built
and tested.
On 10/06/2012 05:21 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
Unfortunately, testing that docs compile cleanly takes about 15 times as long as
code, so it's not for the underpowered or faint hearted. Used to be 2 3/4 hours
on my virtual machine.
Yes, true. The from-scratch build time for docs is pretty hefty,
On 10/06/2012 05:46 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
As you say, compile-edit-compile cycles are shorter than the full build, but can
occasionally not reveal errors, so for a proper test it's always better to nuke
the build directory and rebuild from scratch.
Out of curiosity, what kind of errors? I
On 27/09/12 16:44, Janek Warchoł wrote:
oh yes, that's on my list of difficult to express things for more
than a year.
Reading Keith Stone's contemporary music examples, you'll see there's a similar
issue for glissandi with a terminating pitch ... :-)
On 25/09/12 18:03, James wrote:
PAH!
I bet Mike Solo would eat Ferneyhough for breakfast
If you mean Mike Solomon then yes, his scores engraved with Lilypond are
mightily impressive. :-)
... but for the problem at hand -- in the scores I've seen, he doesn't use the
complex nested tuplets
On 27/09/12 19:15, Ian Hulin wrote:
It's slightly off-topic from Graham's original proposition in the thread
base-message, which was restricted to multiple-of-two/multiples-of three
type duplets. This part of the thread has strayed beyond extra valid
values for durations, and we've strayed into
On 27/09/12 21:06, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
From my Suite Post Algorithmica.
I stand corrected, and rather amused :-)
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 26/09/12 09:19, Janek Warchoł wrote:
This is a good idea in itself, but i'm afraid we'll drown in the flood
of suggestions if we ask this question now. Currently we want to
focus on syntax alone.
I do understand that, it's just that I think that proposals for syntax changes
make more
On 24/09/12 18:27, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't like it since it does not match musical concepts. You would not
talk about 12th notes to other musicians.
That's not entirely true. Contemporary composers (I think Ferneyhough started
it, others have continued it) have used time signatures
On 25/09/12 06:48, Keith OHara wrote:
Try it out. Enter some Debussy using 12th-notes, 9th notes, etc.
http://www.mutopiaproject.org/cgibin/make-table.cgi?searchingfor=debussy
If nested tuplets are your intended testing ground, try engraving Ferneyhough.
All else is playground stuff. :-)
On 24/09/12 14:07, Janek Warchoł wrote:
I suggest to ask more for complaints than for ideas: what users find
confusing, inconvenient and difficult to express in Lily syntax. I
think this will be more valuable information than proposals let's
have a syntax like this.
Actually, rather than what
On 23/09/12 15:58, David Kastrup wrote:
With the separately discussed isolated durations are pitch-less
NoteEvent in noteentry, you could use arguments like
{ 8 ~ 8. } = { 4 }
and such music arguments would get passed through a \score markup using
a specific TempoStaff without stafflines and
On 23/09/12 00:07, Graham Percival wrote:
I have no problem with splitting \tempo into a \tempo_bpm and
\tempoMark command. Or perhaps it would be better to just use
\mark, and add markup functions which mimic the text parts of
the existing \tempo command (if they don't already exist, which
On 13/09/12 08:11, David Kastrup wrote:
If it does, so does
c'1 { s4 s\ s2 s\! }
Stepping back from syntax for a second, the problem with the above (as currently
implemented) is that the spacing will not produce correct output from a visual
engraving point of view. This applies also to
On 17/09/12 13:38, David Kastrup wrote:
So what would be required here seemingly would be linearization of the
spacing in absence of note columns which convey proper timing through
their note values, however non-linearly spaced.
Actually, this is an interesting question for people to examine
On 11/09/12 13:04, David Kastrup wrote:
Basically every construct that we would be tempted to use or s1*0 for
occasionally is one that is not really attached to a note, but rather to
a moment in time. You can put it in parallel music without changing
results. Most articulations with a
On 11/09/12 14:15, David Kastrup wrote:
No. Just those commands that are not intrinsically attached to a note
within a voice, like dynamics and phrasings. Basically those things
that you'd occasionally attach to or s1*0 for lack of something more
suitable.
In the case of dynamics, you
On 08/09/12 16:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I have in the past talked with people from Henle; also, Schirmer has a
style guide that you can order as a book.
How far in the past are we talking about? (Just for clarity.)
My overall impression is that they are primarily interested in:
* Strict
On 08/09/12 10:17, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
due to the discussion about funny accidental placements in music
written for strings with scordatura, I had a closer look at the Rosary
Sonatas from Biber. As a result, I'm playing the 14th sonata with my
daughter in a concert[1], among other pieces :-)
I'm moving this discussion from -bug to -devel as it seems more appropriate
here.
On 06/09/12 11:56, David Kastrup wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
Has anyone ever actually engaged with any major publishers to identify
the factors that are of interest
On 01/09/12 17:25, Graham Percival wrote:
Continuing to brainstorm on the problem of it not being obvious to
which note a particular \command refers to, what if we used:
\postfix: c2 d\p is unchanged
/prefix: for music functions like c2 /parenthesize d
.neutral: for commands which
On 03/09/12 21:12, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
The hard and fast rule is - attaches to a note; = attaches to the
prevous element. I don't think that we had a chance to get into
that during the big meeting.
the previous element is the same kind of
On 03/09/12 14:18, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't have a good answer here, and I am not particularly happy with
suggesting that the work I end up doing will not likely be shaped much
by committee or community decisions but rather mostly by my own
conscience and programmer instincts. Which, in
On 06/09/12 11:48, Graham Percival wrote:
What's depressing? I didn't see anything unusual in those
comments.
I suppose it's a bit depressing that no one pointed out why it matters that you
enter exact pitch names and don't infer accidentals from the key signature.
(I.e., how do you
On 10/08/12 02:23, David Kastrup wrote:
It would have been 3+2/8 at any rate since throwing parens into the
token syntax would have further messed up the ambiguities, and forms
like 3/2+2/5 would not likely have worked.
Could it improve matters to have instead something like,
3:2 + 2:5
On 10/08/12 15:06, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
I haven't looked at the code, but I don't see a reason why it wouldn't
be possible to extend that to non-power-of-2 denominators.
Great! :-)
What's odd is that it already works for some cases, but not others -- examples
attached to the bug report
On 30/07/12 17:52, Graham Percival wrote:
In general, yes. But some aspects of our syntax haven't been
around for a long time -- footnotes, woodwind fingering, compound
meters, etc. Do we have the best syntax for those? I mean,
maybe David can figure out a way to allow us to write
Just realized I sent my original reply straight to Graham and not to the list --
sorry for the double email :-(
On 26/07/12 19:19, Graham Percival wrote:
I should add some more context. I've just remembered that we have
a tutorial (don't ask me how I forgot), and that covers pretty
much what
On 27/07/12 11:11, Graham Percival wrote:
Think of the stable notation as a subset, not the complete set.
Yes, fair enough -- it's very likely changes can be done additively and if not
for the traditional syntax to be maintained as syntactic sugar.
Hmm. I'll have to think about this more.
On 24/07/12 10:09, Graham Percival wrote:
Let’s decide whether to try to stabilize the syntax or not. What
type of project do we want LilyPond to be? What kinds of
guarantees (or at least firm intentions) do we want to give to
users with respect to lilypond 2 or 5 years from now being able to
On 26/07/12 16:50, David Kastrup wrote:
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
How feasible is it for LilyPond to support a deprecation mechanism for
syntax?
At some time, it will be removed or the warning is pointless. So this
will not address the topic of bitrot
On 05/07/12 01:27, Graham Percival wrote:
Thanks for checking! I'm following up on ripple and NW2LY
Re NW2LY, I think you'll be OK if NW2LY itself is free software (but it didn't
seem so to me?) and it is referred to as a solution to help users extract their
music from a proprietary
On 19/06/12 13:32, Graham Percival wrote:
do not recommend any non-Free programs, nor require a non-free program to build
13 I’d better check the licenses of the “Easier editing” programs.
If you mean the list here:
http://lilypond.org/easier-editing.html
... there are 2 proprietary
Hello all,
When running git cl config, it asks for more info than I have found in the
current contributors' guide.
Yes, I can/could just hit a newline, but it'd be nice to have concrete answers
-- what are the correct pieces of info for:
* Tree Status URL (I put the URL of the LP git
On 15/05/12 16:35, Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 02:19:34PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Yes, I can/could just hit a newline, but it'd be nice to have
concrete answers -- what are the correct pieces of info for:
quick answers here
It seems fine to just hit enter
On 14/05/12 07:35, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:38:54AM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Here you go. :-) Let me know if it needs tweaking or might be
better in another section of the guide.
Please see the summary for experienced developers in the CG.
That really
On 14/05/12 07:37, Graham Percival wrote:
No. LilyPond is a command-line compiler. That's something that
would happen in an alternate program.
I'm not disputing that, or suggesting that you go into GUI/IDE territory
directly -- what I'm suggesting is that consideration be given to what
On 14/05/12 09:46, David Kastrup wrote:
We don't have a canonical developer, one whose personal
branch/repository would be official for the project.
GitHub and Launchpad both permit branches to be owned by groups as well as
individuals. I'm sure other DVCS-based code hosts do as well, but
On 14/05/12 09:56, David Kastrup wrote:
URL:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/source/Documentation/notation/skipping-corrected-music
Yes, but that wasn't the use-case I had in mind. The sort of thing I was
thinking of was:
(i) I have a full, complete score, which I have
On 14/05/12 11:41, David Kastrup wrote:
Before saying anything more, I'm sorry if my earlier email was offensive or
intemperate; it wasn't meant to be. I was writing out of concern for the ease
of contributing to LilyPond (more on that in a moment).
Have you actually used Rietveld for
On 14/05/12 11:47, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
This is very hard because of the butterfly effect - an A-flat in an
already-crammed line could lead to new line breaking, which means new vertical
spacing etc..
I don't assume it would be easy! But enabling GUI/IDE developers to build
On 14/05/12 14:15, David Kastrup wrote:
They are treated by the bug squad picking up the suggestion and filing
it in the issue problem.
If someone suggested to you that they will refuse doing that, that
someone was not giving you correct information.
OK. :-)
To be fair, reconsidering things,
On 14/05/12 14:36, David Kastrup wrote:
It is not like the graphical frontends are not mentioned in LilyPond's
documentation. Have you checked
URL:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/web/easier-editing#Score_002c-tab-and-MIDI-editors_003a?
Personally I'm a Frescobaldi fan. MuseScore
On 12/05/12 17:22, James wrote:
On 12 May 2012 14:24, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
A small word to this effect might be a nice addition to the contributor
guide (I'll make a patch if you like).
Sure go ahead.
Here you go. :-) Let me know if it needs tweaking or might be better in another
On 13/05/12 23:34, Graham Percival wrote:
LilyPond itself will remain as a command-line compiler. So this
question can be split into two separate ones:
- what capabilities should alternate programs (i.e. frescobaldi)
have?
- what should the input syntax be?
When considering these
Hello all,
I've successfully build Lilypond itself from source, but when I try to make doc,
the build hangs on the first file it attempts to compile:
make[3]: Entering directory `/home/joseph/code/lily/build/input/regression'
LILYPOND_VERSION=2.15.39 /usr/bin/python
On 12/05/12 11:59, Phil Holmes wrote:
The doc build now issues far less chatter than it used to. With a single core
machine, it could well go an hour without a single message. If it's using CPU
and taking memory, be patient. If there's no response after a day, let us know.
OK, cool. It's nice
On 12/05/12 13:37, David Kastrup wrote:
You are running a command
- echo texi2html not found
and that does not quite work. It would appear that the error handling
for a missing texi2html script is totally awful. I'd install texi2html
and rerun configure.
Texi2html was already
On 12/05/12 14:29, James wrote:
Assuming you are building from current master then make doc does
compile as all new checkins go to staging tree first and sit there
while a script runs (as it happens on my computer) that compiles
staging through all the tests and if it passes them all (and that
101 - 161 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
