Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-09-16 22:21 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> Thomas Morley writes: >> >>> 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >>> And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because

Re: \mark and slur

2017-09-16 22:21 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> >>> And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because someone for >>> some reason finds it less challenging to

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > >> And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because someone for >> some reason finds it less challenging to implement functionality than >> inventing examples using it... > >

Re: \mark and slur

2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > David Kastrup writes: > >> Thomas Morley writes: >> >>> If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like >>> below are now possible: >>> >>> xxx = c4 >>> { \xxx -- } >> >> Yes.

Re: \mark and slur

David Kastrup writes: > Thomas Morley writes: > >> If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like >> below are now possible: >> >> xxx = c4 >> { \xxx -- } > > Yes. > >> and >> #{ $m -. #} > > Yes. #m -. should be fine as

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like > below are now possible: > > xxx = c4 > { \xxx -- } Yes. > and > > foo = > #(define-music-function (mus)(ly:music?) > (music-map > (lambda (m) > (if

Re: \mark and slur

2017-09-16 13:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> Other 5181-topic: >> In your patch description you wrote about the problem with >> c-\single \dynamicUp \f >> >> Here I can't follow, compiling this with 2.18.2 and current master >>

Re: \mark and slur

David Kastrup writes: > Noeck writes: > >> Hi, >> >>> Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics >>> or multimeasure rest. Something like that. >> >> :) >> >>> Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-09-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> Thomas Morley writes: > Frankly, what does it even _mean_ to use a particular righthand finger and string for a non-existing note? >>> >>> Well, that

Re: \mark and slur

2017-09-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: >>> Frankly, what does it even _mean_ to use a >>> particular righthand finger and string for a non-existing note? >> >> Well, that hold as well for: >> { -1 -- d' } >> but this one works. >

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > Other 5181-topic: > In your patch description you wrote about the problem with > c-\single \dynamicUp \f > > Here I can't follow, compiling this with 2.18.2 and current master > returns no noticeable difference for me, even using >

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-09-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> Thomas Morley writes: >> >>> I'd go for post-event(s) >>> Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below >> >> But every one gets its own

Re: \mark and slur

2017-09-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> I'd go for post-event(s) >> Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below > > But every one gets its own warning, so each warning is only for one. Well, then I'd expect

RE: \mark and slur

rg> Subject: Re: \mark and slur "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: > David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] wrote: >> <lilypond-user@gnu.org> >> Subject: Re: \mark and slur >> >> "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca

Re: \mark and slur

Thomas Morley writes: > I'd go for post-event(s) > Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below But every one gets its own warning, so each warning is only for one. > But > { -\3 -\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 } > issues the warning, the image doesn't

Re: \mark and slur

Hi David, I know played a little with your fix issue 5181 On current topic: 2017-09-14 15:57 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > David Kastrup writes: > Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning > message for this input would be "SlurEvent".

Re: \mark and slur

> From: Noeck > Hi, > > > warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event > > I would understand it best if the warning said any of: > > Cannot attach slur to preceding expression > Slur is not attached to note or chord > Cannot attach slur to note or chord > No note or

Re: \mark and slur

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: > David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] wrote: >> <lilypond-user@gnu.org> >> Subject: Re: \mark and slur >> >> "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: >> &

Re: \mark and slur

Noeck writes: > Hi, > >> Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics >> or multimeasure rest. Something like that. > > :) > >> Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio >> or articulation or beam or beam forbid or

Re: \mark and slur

Hi, > Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics > or multimeasure rest. Something like that. :) > Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio > or articulation or beam or beam forbid or bendafter or crescendo or > decrescendo or episema

RE: \mark and slur

phen Mrotek <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> Cc: 'Gianmaria Lari' <gianmarial...@gmail.com>; 'lilypond-user' <lilypond-user@gnu.org> Subject: Re: \mark and slur "Mark Stephen Mrotek" <carsonm...@ca.rr.com> writes: > Try > > c4 c c d > >(c4^\markup {"

Re: \mark and slur

Noeck writes: > Hi, > >> warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event > > I would understand it best if the warning said any of: > > Cannot attach slur to preceding expression > Slur is not attached to note or chord > Cannot attach slur to note or chord > No note or

Re: \mark and slur

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes: > Try > > c4 c c d > >(c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c Shrug. If you insist on that kind of organization you can try \version "2.19.65" \fixed c' { c4 c c d (\mark "X" c4) c c c } But it's really a delusion you are getting and

Re: \mark and slur

Hi, > warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event I would understand it best if the warning said any of: Cannot attach slur to preceding expression Slur is not attached to note or chord Cannot attach slur to note or chord No note or chord before this slur to attach it to (is that

RE: \mark and slur

Gianmaria, Try c4 c c d (c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c Mark From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org] On Behalf Of Gianmaria Lari Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 2:14 AM To: lilypond-user Subject: \mark and slur This

Re: \mark and slur

Rutger Hofman writes: > On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning >> message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would >> >> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent >>

Re: \mark and slur

On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote: David Kastrup writes: Rutger Hofman writes: My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of the note that directly precedes it. That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.

Re: \mark and slur

David Kastrup writes: > Rutger Hofman writes: > >> My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of >> the note that directly precedes it. > > That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about. > GNU LilyPond 2.21.0

Re: \mark and slur

Rutger Hofman writes: > But isn't the start time of this <> the start time of the c4 in the > second line, so that <>( c4) is equivalent to c4(); which causes the > warnings 'cannot end slur' for ')' and 'unterminated slur' for '('? Yes and yes. > My guess is that this

Re: \mark and slur

But isn't the start time of this <> the start time of the c4 in the second line, so that <>( c4) is equivalent to c4(); which causes the warnings 'cannot end slur' for ')' and 'unterminated slur' for '('? My guess is that this insertion of <> makes things more complicated for us, unenlightened

Re: \mark and slur

David Kastrup wrote: > People tend to ignore warnings > anyway. I personally ignore warnings only when I don't see them. And I normally don't see them when they are in a long list of other information (maybe written in small character etc. etc :)) Ciao, g.

Re: \mark and slur

Thank you Malte and Phil! It works well and your suggestion make sense. I normally didn't pay much attention to this thing, now I will. Gianmaria On 14 September 2017 at 11:27, Malte Meyn wrote: > > > Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari: > >>c4 c c d >>

Re: How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur]

Malte Meyn writes: > Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage: >> >> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0 > > […] > >> Is that more helpful than previously? >> >> GNU LilyPond 2.19.80 > > This looks nice :) Do I

Re: \mark and slur

Malte Meyn writes: > Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup: >> Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage: >> >> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0 >> Processing `sll.ly' >> Parsing... >> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event >>\mark

How near is 2.20? [was: Re: \mark and slur]

Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup: Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage: GNU LilyPond 2.21.0 […] Is that more helpful than previously? GNU LilyPond 2.19.80 This looks nice :) Do I understand correctly that after 2.19.65 follows 2.21.0 in the master

Re: \mark and slur

Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup: Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage: GNU LilyPond 2.21.0 Processing `sll.ly' Parsing... sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event \mark "X" (c4) c c c Interpreting music... sll.ly:4:16:

Re: \mark and slur

Malte Meyn writes: > Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari: >>c4 c c d >>(c4) c c c > > […] > >>c4 c c d >>\mark "X" (c4) c c c > > The start of slur belongs to the d, not the c. > > Writing > d (c) > is possible and equivalent to > d(

Re: \mark and slur

It's not the position of the mark that is wrong - it's the slur. This applies to a note and so must follow the note immediately. Move the ( to the end of the previous line and all will be well. -- Phil Holmes - Original Message - From: Gianmaria Lari To: lilypond-user

Re: \mark and slur

Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari: c4 c c d (c4) c c c […] c4 c c d \mark "X" (c4) c c c The start of slur belongs to the d, not the c. Writing d (c) is possible and equivalent to d( c) but the latter more clearly says what’s going on. You tried