Super glad to see this conversation happening! David I'm so glad you've
been working on the backend for divisi. Divisi staves have long been my
biggest headache.
Thomas, thanks for writing the improved version. I haven't had a chance to
look at the code deeply yet — I will play around with it
On Tue 07 Aug 2018 at 12:30:03 (-0700), Galen Menzel wrote:
> Now, although `lyrics_c` is a silly way to write a lyric line,
> `lyrics_b` seems reasonable to me. Is there a better way to define a
> lyric line in a `parallelMusic` definition so that lilypond doesn’t
> complain? And if not, is
Hi all,
I’m using 2.18.2.
The following code compiles with no issue and correctly places the
lyrics below the notes:
```
melody_a = { r2 a8 b8 r4 | r2 a8 b8 r4 }
lyrics_a = \lyricmode { one two three four }
\score {
<<
\new Voice = "melody" \relative c'' \melody_a
\new Lyrics
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2018-08-07 20:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>
Ok, let me chime in: I've basically developed some of the low-level
mechanisms for divisi staves.
>>>
>>> You mean that 'make-dead-when stuff?
>>
>> Well, that's the internal part of the low
On 08/07, liebre...@grossmann-venter.com wrote:
> The problem has been solved by Mason
The problem was pretty much entirely solved by David N. I'm glad that the very
minor change I made got it closer to what you need, but you should thank him
for writing the excellent \include.
Sorry for
I thank you for the kind help and being to the point with a solution.
You're a good competent person and I appreciate it.
On 2018-08-07 15:07, ma...@masonhock.com wrote:
On 08/07, liebre...@grossmann-venter.com wrote:
The problem has been solved by Mason
The problem was pretty much entirely
2018-08-07 20:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>>> Ok, let me chime in: I've basically developed some of the low-level
>>> mechanisms for divisi staves.
>>
>> You mean that 'make-dead-when stuff?
>
> Well, that's the internal part of the low end. But it's usually driven
> by
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2018-08-07 19:48 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> 2018-08-06 21:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
2018-08-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
> Inspired by your work I come up with the attached.
Attached an improved and
2018-08-07 19:48 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2018-08-06 21:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
>>> 2018-08-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
>>>
Inspired by your work I come up with the attached.
>>>
>>> Attached an improved and simplified version.
>>> It's tested with
Quite frankly you were stabbing at me for no reason from onset. Even if
I agreed with you, you kept stabbing.
The problem has been solved by Mason and you keep harping along trying
to look for anything to fight about.
Since it is my thread I kindly request you not to respond to my posts
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2018-08-06 21:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
>> 2018-08-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
>>
>>> Inspired by your work I come up with the attached.
>>
>> Attached an improved and simplified version.
>> It's tested with 2/3/4-voices divisi, all in one score.
>> Although not
David Nalesnik writes:
>> On 2018-08-07 04:03, David Kastrup wrote:
>> >
>> > A license, as opposed to relying on people to stay nice, also protects
>> > you against such worst case scenarios.
>> >
>> > Also many (but not necessarily all) code pieces from David may be
>> > substantially derived
On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:12 PM David Nalesnik wrote:
> Good grief :( I selected the MIT license because it's very common,
> and in the spirit of, as you write, "feel
> free to use it, I don't care."
>
> Seems I'm not the only one--I read this in the openlilylib repo
>
2018-08-06 21:40 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
> 2018-08-05 18:14 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
>
>> Inspired by your work I come up with the attached.
>
> Attached an improved and simplified version.
> It's tested with 2/3/4-voices divisi, all in one score.
> Although not tested, I see no reason why it
> On 2018-08-07 04:03, David Kastrup wrote:
> > ma...@masonhock.com writes:
> >
> >> Then it's a good thing that David shared his code as free (as in
> >> freedom[1]) software, so that it can be modified for your unique use
> >> case.
> >
> > What's relevant for this is mostly "in source of an
Hi,
I have to produce multiple files from one .ly file, and since it isn't
actually one but >500 files I would like to make it automatic. Of course
I know how to achieve this with a wrapper script, but I'd prefer to find
a way with only one compilation (i.e. parsing) per file.
I know I can
liebre...@grossmann-venter.com writes:
> Unfortunately you overlooked one little point.
>
> From the author
> "
> But perhaps there's something in the code that you can use towards
> your own goals. Like, for example,the routines for drawing the
> diminished and half-diminished circles.
> Like
Unfortunately you overlooked one little point.
From the author
"
But perhaps there's something in the code that you can use towards your
own goals. Like, for example,the routines for drawing the diminished
and half-diminished circles.
Like parsing input. Whatever.
"
Which gives the right
On 08/07/2018 11:37 AM, Johan Vromans wrote:
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:25:53 +1000, Don Gingrich
wrote:
Then the multiplier would reside in the included files, the
variable would be in the score file, and by including
the correct file I could have either type of score.
Why not set the staff
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 18:25:53 +1000, Don Gingrich
wrote:
> Then the multiplier would reside in the included files, the
> variable would be in the score file, and by including
> the correct file I could have either type of score.
Why not set the staff size in the included file, just like the paper
This is an unusual problem. I've got a bunch of
scores that I process to PDF and include in a a
LaTeX "container" document to produce a booklet
of nearly 200 pages at this point. But I also want
to be able to print them as individual scores.
When I'm "including" a score, I push the margins
to
Forgot to copy list.
On 08/06, ma...@masonhock.com wrote:
> On 08/06, liebre...@grossmann-venter.com wrote:
> > Sure, but from a programming point of view it is better to have all
> > characters the same size, then if in the exponent or subscript then shrink
> > them.
>
> That makes sense when
On 08/06, liebre...@grossmann-venter.com wrote:
> Sure, but from a programming point of view it is better to have all
> characters the same size, then if in the exponent or subscript then shrink
> them.
That makes sense when rendering characters in general, which is what \markup is
for and how
23 matches
Mail list logo
