Re: Stop Emails directed to miguelabram...@gmail.com

Here's how to do it. Standard for very many lists. https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user On 5/07/2020 4:49 am, Miguel Abrams wrote: Request to Unsubscribe from this mailing list thank Michael Abrams miguelabram...@gmail.com

Re: Double-stemming question.

Greetings Carl, Thank you for your explanation. What you say makes sense. I suppose I would have liked an appearance where, at first glance, the second pair of chords in the example do not look like four chords but two, like the first two chords. Given that the entire piece is made up of these

Stop Emails directed to miguelabram...@gmail.com

Request to Unsubscribe from this mailing list thank Michael Abrams miguelabram...@gmail.com

Re: Double-stemming question.

On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 9:20 AM Hwaen Ch'uqi wrote: > Greetings, > > In the following measure of code, there are several instances of > double-stemming. The single notes and triads merge correctly, but the > four-note chords do not. I feel like the reason and solution should be > straightforward,

Re: Accidentals' font

Paolo Prete writes: > 1) Is there a GPL or open-source alternative for FETA fonts for > accidentals that can be used with Lilypond? Have a look through these repos: https://github.com/OpenLilyPondFonts Instructions for using these fonts are available at

Re: Double-stemming question.

Hi Hwaen, The single notes and triads merge correctly, but the four-note chords do not. This seems to be a bug. The culprit is the combination of two notes a step apart (and you can see that they are aligned differently in both instances). While I can't provide you with a solution right

Double-stemming question.

Greetings, In the following measure of code, there are several instances of double-stemming. The single notes and triads merge correctly, but the four-note chords do not. I feel like the reason and solution should be straightforward, but I cannot seem to wrap my head around the situation. Any

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: >>> Of course I can do >>> >>> circlefunc = \markup\circle\etc >>> \markup \test \circlefunc "whatever" >> You can? Have you tried? \circlefunc here is quite equivalent to >> \circle . > > Hm, I think I do not understand. With > > test = > #(define-scheme-function

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Of course I can do circlefunc = \markup\circle\etc \markup \test \circlefunc "whatever" You can? Have you tried? \circlefunc here is quite equivalent to \circle . Hm, I think I do not understand. With test = #(define-scheme-function (enclosure content) (markup-function? markup?)

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: > Hi David, > >> test = >> #(define-scheme-function (enclosure content) >>(markup-function? markup?) >>(list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #})) >> >> \markup \test \markup \circle \with-color #red \etc "whatever" > > Amazing, wonderfully elegant. > > Is

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Hi David, test = #(define-scheme-function (enclosure content) (markup-function? markup?) (list enclosure #{ \markup \box #content #})) \markup \test \markup \circle \with-color #red \etc "whatever" Amazing, wonderfully elegant. Is there a way to avoid the second "\markup" and "\etc"

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Urs Liska writes: > In the following markup command definition > > #(define-markup-command (test layout props enclosure content) > (scheme? markup?) >(interpret-markup layout props (markup #:circle content))) > > I would like to make the #:circle parametric, i.e. I want to pass > something

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Hi Lukas, Am Samstag, den 04.07.2020, 10:22 +0200 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: > Hi Urs, > > > I have tried various things, but I don't seem to understand how > > that > > primitive-eval actually works here. Your solution does only work > > when > > the input is a simple markup (string), not when

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Hi Urs, I have tried various things, but I don't seem to understand how that primitive-eval actually works here. Your solution does only work when the input is a simple markup (string), not when it is wrapped in other markup commands. It seems to work quite robustly if you draw the given

Re: Making markup functions parametric

Am Samstag, den 04.07.2020, 05:28 +0200 schrieb Urs Liska: > > Am 3. Juli 2020 23:33:42 MESZ schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser > : > > > #(define (get-scheme-markup-function func) > > >(string->symbol > > > (string-append "make-" > > >(symbol->string func) > > >