Re: Invisible glissando, best fix?
On Sat, 2015-11-07 at 23:36 +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> On 07.11.2015 11:54, Richard Shann wrote:
> > In some circumstances LilyPond leaves a glissando invisible:
> >
> > \version "2.19.25"
> >
> > {
> > d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
> >
> > I looked up the issues list and found this:
> >
> > { \override Glissando #'minimum-length = #5
> > \override Glissando #'springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods
> > d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
> >
> > but before I did that I just used a command available in Denemo thus:
> >
> > { d'' 4\glissando \once \override NoteColumn.X-offset = #2
> > cis'' 4 c'' b' }
> >
> > These achieve similar effects for this tiny example, I wonder if someone
> > could give me some insights into the merits or demerits of these
> > approaches?
>
> The first one is clearly preferable. Firstly, it’s more semantically
> appropriate, because it better matches the reason you need a tweak. And
> LilyPond much tends to reward staying with semantically correct
> solutions. Such also in this case:
> The second version won’t work at all if there is another voice with the
> same notes in the same staff(1), and in other cases it will break
> vertical alignment of voices, which you’ll likely not want.
>
> HTH, Simon
Thanks - I did some experimentation and found the alignment breaking
thing. I've put the preferred handling of this into Denemo.
About the
> changed code formatting; IMO this is more compliant to
> existent guidelines as well as to general usage (as far as there is
> such
> a thing in the LilyPond community) and easier to read.)
>
I can see you omitted a space between \once and \override, which seems
like a good idea. I was wondering whether there were even more modern
things (\tweak ?) that I could be using...
Richard
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Invisible glissando, best fix?
On 08.11.2015 11:36, Richard Shann wrote:
On Sat, 2015-11-07 at 23:36 +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
On 07.11.2015 11:54, Richard Shann wrote:
In some circumstances LilyPond leaves a glissando invisible:
\version "2.19.25"
{
d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
I looked up the issues list and found this:
{ \override Glissando #'minimum-length = #5
\override Glissando #'springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods
d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
but before I did that I just used a command available in Denemo thus:
{ d'' 4\glissando \once \override NoteColumn.X-offset = #2
cis'' 4 c'' b' }
These achieve similar effects for this tiny example, I wonder if someone
could give me some insights into the merits or demerits of these
approaches?
The first one is clearly preferable. Firstly, it’s more semantically
appropriate, because it better matches the reason you need a tweak. And
LilyPond much tends to reward staying with semantically correct
solutions. Such also in this case:
The second version won’t work at all if there is another voice with the
same notes in the same staff(1), and in other cases it will break
vertical alignment of voices, which you’ll likely not want.
HTH, Simon
Thanks - I did some experimentation and found the alignment breaking
thing. I've put the preferred handling of this into Denemo.
About the
changed code formatting; IMO this is more compliant to
existent guidelines as well as to general usage (as far as there is
such
a thing in the LilyPond community) and easier to read.)
I can see you omitted a space between \once and \override, which seems
like a good idea. I was wondering whether there were even more modern
things (\tweak ?) that I could be using...
Actually, \tweak is not essentially more ‘modern’ but simply a different
tool which will behave differently. It’s effect is more precisely
directed to only the one music expression that follows, IIUC.
Another sidenote: the hash sign for stand-alone numbers is not required
anymore, the only exception being that #.5 works, but without # you need
to type 0.5 explicitly.
Yours, Simon
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Invisible glissando, best fix?
On 07.11.2015 11:54, Richard Shann wrote:
In some circumstances LilyPond leaves a glissando invisible:
\version "2.19.25"
{
d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
I looked up the issues list and found this:
{ \override Glissando #'minimum-length = #5
\override Glissando #'springs-and-rods = #ly:spanner::set-spacing-rods
d'' 4\glissando cis'' 4 c'' b' }
but before I did that I just used a command available in Denemo thus:
{ d'' 4\glissando \once \override NoteColumn.X-offset = #2
cis'' 4 c'' b' }
These achieve similar effects for this tiny example, I wonder if someone
could give me some insights into the merits or demerits of these
approaches?
The first one is clearly preferable. Firstly, it’s more semantically
appropriate, because it better matches the reason you need a tweak. And
LilyPond much tends to reward staying with semantically correct
solutions. Such also in this case:
The second version won’t work at all if there is another voice with the
same notes in the same staff(1), and in other cases it will break
vertical alignment of voices, which you’ll likely not want.
HTH, Simon
(1) E.g.
%
\version "2.19.28"
<<
{
d''4\glissando \once\override NoteColumn.X-offset = #2 cis''4 c'' b'
}
change the following to ‘\new Staff’ in order to test another
situation
\\
{
d''4 cis'' c'' b'
}
>>
%
(note the changed code formatting; IMO this is more compliant to
existent guidelines as well as to general usage (as far as there is such
a thing in the LilyPond community) and easier to read.)
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
