Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread Alex Voice
://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/176955/0/Screen%20Shot%202015-05-23%20at%205.41.47%20PM.pnggt; -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/time-signature-magic-tp176955p176956.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread ole
maybe this helps? http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=782 ole Am 23.05.2015 um 23:44 schrieb Alex Jones akjonesjeff...@gmail.com: Does anyone have a suggestion for a good way to accomplish this in lilypond? time signature with a second time signature in parentheses? Thanks in advance!

Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread Alex Jones
Thank you, this works! It does look a little clunky. I saw this, which gets the parentheses but doesn’t include the first non-parenthesized item. Can these two items be combined?

Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread David Nalesnik
Hi Alex, On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Alex Jones akjonesjeff...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you, this works! It does look a little clunky. I agree--there's too much space. A simple fix is to use \concat, which puts items directly beside each other, instead of \line in the original function:

time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread Alex Jones
Does anyone have a suggestion for a good way to accomplish this in lilypond? time signature with a second time signature in parentheses? Thanks in advance! -akj ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread Alex Jones
This worked like a charm, thanks to everyone! -akj On May 23, 2015, at 7:05 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com wrote: #(define ((time-parenthesized-time up down upp downp) grob) (ly:stencil-combine-at-edge (grob-interpret-markup grob (markup #:override '(baseline-skip

Re: time signature magic

2015-05-23 Thread David Nalesnik
Alex, On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Alex Jones akjonesjeff...@gmail.com wrote: This worked like a charm, thanks to everyone! Great! Thought of something. Why specify the numbers of the time signature in effect? Not that it saves much time, but you could do this for a slightly shorter