On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> Meanwhile why not use some of the workarounds?
>
> (1)
> \mark \markup <\[center-]column>
> (already mentioned)
>
> (2)
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=976
> or
> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=977
>
> (3)
> http://old.nabble.co
Hi David,
> The fact that these workarounds exist prompts the question:
> if the problem can be worked around, why must we continue
> to have a problem to work around?
If the problem that humans can’t fly unassisted can be worked around [by way of
aircraft], why must we continue to have the prob
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 23:01 +0100, Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler :
> > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > not
> > allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
> >
> > If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps w
2017-02-04 15:10 GMT+01:00 David Sumbler :
> A text mark in Lilypond is represented by a grob called a
> RehearsalMark; the grob for a tempo marking is called a MetronomeMark.
>
> I wonder whether perhaps these names reflect something about the
> history of Lilypond: they are certainly not accurate
On Tue, 2017-02-07 at 14:59 -0600, David Wright wrote:
> How would you deal with the case where \songName landed on a break?
> That's the problem I've had to wrestle with in the past. You'd want
> the fermata at the end of a line but the song title at the start of
> the next.
In the particular cas
On Tue 07 Feb 2017 at 10:34:14 (+), David Sumbler wrote:
> Thank you all for the various suggestions regarding this problem.
>
> Some of the latest posts have left me slightly bewildered: I wasn't
> aware that there was a problem with having a RehearsalMark and a
> MetronomeMark at the same po
On 07.02.2017 09:17, David Kastrup wrote:
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
mark at the same point in time, u
Because it was incorrect syntax, but not shown as such in the logfile. Correct
syntax was still \mark \default
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: Flaming Hakama by Elaine
To: Lilypond-User Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Multiple
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>> > I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
>> > ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
>> > underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
>> > was very frustrating back then.
>>
>>
> > I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
> > ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
> > underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
> > was very frustrating back then.
>
> What exactly do you mean by “back then”?
Wols Lists writes:
> On 07/02/17 13:39, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> Hi Wols,
>>
>>> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
>>> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
>>> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. Tha
On 07/02/17 14:33, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Wols,
>
>> Before then :-) - some time last century :-)
>
> Is there anyone on the list who can verify when this was a problem? i.e.,
> which version it stopped being a problem.
> I’m seriously curious!
>
>> I started using lily with 2.4, and I wa
Hi Wols,
> Before then :-) - some time last century :-)
Is there anyone on the list who can verify when this was a problem? i.e., which
version it stopped being a problem.
I’m seriously curious!
> I started using lily with 2.4, and I was forever cursing that "feature”.
Hmm… I started with 2.1,
On 07/02/17 13:39, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi Wols,
>
>> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
>> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
>> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
>> was very frustrating ba
Hi Wols,
> I mean that the code for RehearsalMark was just a wrapper round an
> ordinary mark. So if you tried to put both on the same barline, the
> underlying engine just saw two ordinary marks, and threw one away. That
> was very frustrating back then.
What exactly do you mean by “back then”?
Thank you all for the various suggestions regarding this problem.
Some of the latest posts have left me slightly bewildered: I wasn't
aware that there was a problem with having a RehearsalMark and a
MetronomeMark at the same point in a piece. Of course, they are
formatted and aligned differently
Trevor Daniels wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 9:21 AM
>
> Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:00 AM
>
>> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
>> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
>
>
> \version "2.19.15"
> {
Flaming Hakama by Elaine wrote Tuesday, February 07, 2017 2:00 AM
> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
<>\tempo Allegro 4=120
R1
}
This works in 2.19.1
Flaming Hakama by Elaine writes:
>> > > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
>> > > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>>
>
> I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
> mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
>
> > > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
>
I can't answer that, but here's a way to get a rehearsal mark and a tempo
mark at the same point in time, using an empty chord:
\version "2.19.15"
{
R1
\mark
<
On 06/02/17 11:07, David Sumbler wrote:
> I am unclear about what you mean by an "ordinary mark". The
> implication of what you say seems to be that a RehearsalMark and an
> "ordinary mark" can be anchored to the same barline - which sounds just
> like what I am trying to do.
I mean that the code
On Sat, 2017-02-04 at 15:48 +, Wols Lists wrote:
> On 04/02/17 14:10, David Sumbler wrote:
> >
> > So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does
> > not allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
> Probably because the underlying code makes it very tricky.
I feared that tha
On 04/02/17 14:10, David Sumbler wrote:
> So my question is: is there any good reason why Lilypond still does not
> allow multiple marks or tempo markings?
Probably because the underlying code makes it very tricky.
>
> If the answer to that question really is "yes", then perhaps we could
> have a
A text mark in Lilypond is represented by a grob called a
RehearsalMark; the grob for a tempo marking is called a MetronomeMark.
I wonder whether perhaps these names reflect something about the
history of Lilypond: they are certainly not accurate descriptions of
what the objects are used for - e.g
24 matches
Mail list logo
