Re: endless tab?

[bb]

Am 06.02.2018 um 15:35 schrieb David Wright:

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 09:33:41 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:

Am 06.02.2018 03:15, schrieb Andrew Bernard:

Hi bb,

Do you simply want 17/16? I use times like this very often. Just use
time 17/16 and you will get barlines.


Thank you! This is a possibilty if one really wants 17/16. I do not.
But lilypond does not serve the sloppy user perfectly from using
such constructs inattentively - lilypond could do!

So your concern is just for LP to issue warnings about *your*
inattentiveness so you can debug your scores.
Seems to be an awesomeness to claim eventually support from a program to 
to give a fair warning if I am wrong?
I miss some logic in the behaviour of lilypond in this case. But I 
realize that is the best of all possilties in our world because all tell 
me so.



It doesn't seem to
matter to you that people writing perfectly correct scores are going
to be inundated with false warnings.

You've already brought this up under another thread, and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-01/msg00599.html
gave an example of the reason why LP does not issue warnings
unless you add | characters.


I do not claim lilypond to change my code but I wrote this as an example 
for what lilypond might do instead of setting questionable barlines. (I 
am awaiting some mail in short time that explains me that this is not 
questionable/wrong/critical or whatever for some reason - might it be 
the practice of Chopin or whoever.


Therefore let me point out: I see this behavour of lilypond as a great, 
great feature and the best and greatest of the world!


Hope that satisfies anybody to the end of the days.


My hand written pieces often change time sig every bar, and with any
sort of signature you like - lilypond handles that just fine, and
places barlines as expected. I use 15/16 commonly. Not a problem. And
in fact I hide the time signatures (for reasons not relevant to this
topic) so you can do that too if you want, and still have barlines.

For this case I think it's better to \omit the bar check.

Passing over the fact that one doesn't \omit bar checks,
one omits writing | characters as bar checks,
irregular measure lengths would be a particularly good
occasion to employ a | at the end of every measure.

[…]


I find it remarkable that warnings arise "one bar later". I would
understand this behaviour , if the first bar is not completed and
there is missing something to fill the bar - bit in this case
lilypond is not seting a bar line. Butt remeber that the first bar
is overstuffed by 1/16.

OK, you've made your remark. Could you now turn your attention
to the varieties of musical notation practice.
Indeed it was my realistic ambition to do my work. I hope your 
clarifying mail will give you relief and does not harm your karma. My 
karma is still intact.


With your reminder mail you might force more reactions - I will ignore 
in the future!




Cheers,
David.



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[David Wright]

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 09:33:41 (+0100), Blöchl Bernhard wrote:
> Am 06.02.2018 03:15, schrieb Andrew Bernard:
> >Hi bb,
> >
> >Do you simply want 17/16? I use times like this very often. Just use
> >time 17/16 and you will get barlines.
> >
> 
> Thank you! This is a possibilty if one really wants 17/16. I do not.
> But lilypond does not serve the sloppy user perfectly from using
> such constructs inattentively - lilypond could do!

So your concern is just for LP to issue warnings about *your*
inattentiveness so you can debug your scores. It doesn't seem to
matter to you that people writing perfectly correct scores are going
to be inundated with false warnings.

You've already brought this up under another thread, and
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-01/msg00599.html
gave an example of the reason why LP does not issue warnings
unless you add | characters.

> >My hand written pieces often change time sig every bar, and with any
> >sort of signature you like - lilypond handles that just fine, and
> >places barlines as expected. I use 15/16 commonly. Not a problem. And
> >in fact I hide the time signatures (for reasons not relevant to this
> >topic) so you can do that too if you want, and still have barlines.
> 
> For this case I think it's better to \omit the bar check.

Passing over the fact that one doesn't \omit bar checks,
one omits writing | characters as bar checks,
irregular measure lengths would be a particularly good
occasion to employ a | at the end of every measure.

[…]

> I find it remarkable that warnings arise "one bar later". I would
> understand this behaviour , if the first bar is not completed and
> there is missing something to fill the bar - bit in this case
> lilypond is not seting a bar line. Butt remeber that the first bar
> is overstuffed by 1/16.

OK, you've made your remark. Could you now turn your attention
to the varieties of musical notation practice.

Cheers,
David.

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Am 06.02.2018 03:15, schrieb Andrew Bernard:

Hi bb,

Do you simply want 17/16? I use times like this very often. Just use
time 17/16 and you will get barlines.



Thank you! This is a possibilty if one really wants 17/16. I do not. But 
lilypond does not serve the sloppy user perfectly from using such 
constructs inattentively - lilypond could do!



But I think you are algorithmically generating the notes and
durations, in which case, why can't you also generate the /time
commands for each section where you want a particular time signature?




My hand written pieces often change time sig every bar, and with any
sort of signature you like - lilypond handles that just fine, and
places barlines as expected. I use 15/16 commonly. Not a problem. And
in fact I hide the time signatures (for reasons not relevant to this
topic) so you can do that too if you want, and still have barlines.


For this case I think it's better to \omit the bar check.



This is a deeply nested thread so it's hard to read. Apologies if I
have entirely missed the point!



It is always good to exchange ideas and discuss about.


Andrew



Let me add a third experiment:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c ''{ d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a
#gis a b c d  e f g a b c
}


and a fourth experiment:
\version "2.19.80"
\relative c ''{ d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a
d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a
d4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a
}

I find it remarkable that warnings arise "one bar later". I would 
understand this behaviour , if the first bar is not completed and there 
is missing something to fill the bar - bit in this case lilypond is not 
seting a bar line. Butt remeber that the first bar is overstuffed by 
1/16.



Thanks for your mail and regards.



Again old arguments. Imagine two experiments:


Case 1: I set an arbitrary bar (the manual calls it "bar check")
version "2.19.80"
relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis | }
That enables lilypond to checking the bar content and tells me in
this case that the check failed ...
17/16 is > 4/4

Case 2: lilypond is setting the barline on the same position
(wrong/critcal, however you might call it)
version "2.19.80"
relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis  }
The bar content is 17/16>4/4 again and tells NOTHING!
As there is set a barline lilypond can check the bar content and

Nobody has explained me why in this case lilypond should not be
able to use its algorithm to find 17/16 ? The algorithm is existing
- use it for this as well!


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi bb,

Do you simply want 17/16? I use times like this very often. Just use \time
17/16 and you will get barlines.

But I think you are algorithmically generating the notes and durations, in
which case, why can't you also generate the /time commands for each section
where you want a particular time signature?

My hand written pieces often change time sig every bar, and with any sort
of signature you like - lilypond handles that just fine, and places
barlines as expected. I use 15/16 commonly. Not a problem. And in fact I
hide the time signatures (for reasons not relevant to this topic) so you
can do that too if you want, and still have barlines.

This is a deeply nested thread so it's hard to read. Apologies if I have
entirely missed the point!

Andrew



Again old arguments. Imagine two experiments:

>
> Case 1: I set an arbitrary bar (the manual calls it "bar check")
> \version "2.19.80"
> \relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis | }
> That enables lilypond to checking the bar content and tells me in this
> case that the check failed ...
> 17/16 is > 4/4
>
> Case 2: lilypond is setting the barline on the same position
> (wrong/critcal, however you might call it)
> \version "2.19.80"
> \relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis  }
> The bar content is 17/16>4/4 again and tells NOTHING!
> As there is set a barline lilypond can check the bar content and 
> Nobody has explained me why in this case lilypond should not be able to
> use its algorithm to find 17/16 ? The algorithm is existing - use it for
> this as well!
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Karlin High]

On 2/5/2018 8:58 AM, bb wrote:
As I have remarked, that the original long string was the output of a 
completestest written of a program for a program (therefore the "endless 
string") of an experimental program, not meant for any publication.


Interesting! Please describe what what the program will do.

Too bad the list wasn't informed of that from the beginning; you would 
have had better chances of getting good help sooner. The only thing 
apparent was unformatted code producing undesired results, causing lots 
of "first fix the formatting" responses.



Imagine two experiments:

Case 1: I set an arbitrary bar (the manual calls it "bar check")
\version "2.19.80"
\relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis | }
That enables lilypond to checking the bar content and tells me in this 
case that the check failed ...

17/16 is > 4/4

Case 2: lilypond is setting the barline on the same position 
(wrong/critcal, however you might call it)

\version "2.19.80"
\relative { d''4  cis8  c8  b8. ais8  a  gis  }
The bar content is 17/16>4/4 again and tells NOTHING!
As there is set a barline lilypond can check the bar content and 
Nobody has explained me why in this case lilypond should not be able to 
use its algorithm to find 17/16 ? The algorithm is existing - use it for 
this as well!


Okay, is the 17/16 timing what you actually want? Even more unusual 
timings have been discussed here, so I have no way of knowing. I also 
don't know anything about Tab Staffs. But I've tried to format the 
original code in a way that more of the LilyPond community would expect. 
Results are attached, works on 2.19.80 here.


If code is only for your own use, or as you say, for an automated 
process to use internally, you can format it any way you want. But when 
you want other people to understand it and help fix problems, then they 
have to be able to understand it.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA
\version "2.19.80"

\new TabStaff {
\set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = #fret-number-tablature-format-banjo
  \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #banjo-open-g-tuning
  %\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #(four-string-banjo banjo-c-tuning)
  
  \tabFullNotation
  \stemDown
  
  % 4/4 is the default timing.
  \time 4/4
  % If 17/16 is what you want, use this instead...
  % \time 17/16
  
  fis'''4\1 f'''4\1 e'''4\1 dis'''4\1 |
  d'''4\1 cis'''4\1 c'''4\1 b''4\1 |
  ais''4\1 a''4\1 gis''4\1 g''4\1 |
  fis''4\1 f''4\1 e''4\1 dis''4\1 |
  d''4\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1 |
  ais'4\1 a'\1 gis'\1 g'\1 |
  fis'4\1 f'4\1 e'\1 dis'\1 |
  d'4\1 dis'''4\2 d'''4\2 cis'''4\2 |
  c'''4\2 b''\2 ais''\2 a''4\2 |
  gis''4\2 g''\2 fis''\2 f''\2 |
  e''4\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 |
  c''4\2 b'4\2 ais'\2 a'\2 |
  gis'4\2 g'\2 fis'4\2 f'\2 |
  e'4\2 dis'\2 d'\2 cis'4\2 |
  c'4\2 b\2 b''4\3 ais''4\3 |
  a''4\3 gis''4\3 g''4\3 fis''4\3 |
  f''4\3 e''4\3 dis''4\3 d''4\3 |
  cis''4\3 c''4\3 b'4\3 ais'4\3 |
  a'4\3 gis'\3 g'\3 fis'\3 |
  f'4\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3 |
  cis'4\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 |
  a4\3 gis\3 g\3 < a\3 c'\2 d'\1 >4 |
  < ais'\1 gis'\2 f'\3 >8 d\4 dis\4 e\4 f\4 fis\4 g\4 gis\4 |
  a8\4 ais\4 b\4 c'\4 cis'\4 d'\4 dis'\4 e'\4 |
  f'8\4 fis'\4 g'\4 gis'\4 a'\4 ais'\4 b'8\4 c''\4 |
  cis''8\4 fis\4 dis''\4 e''\4 f''\4 fis''\4 g'\5 gis'\5 |
  a'8\5 ais'\5 b'\5 c''\5 cis''\5 d''\5 dis''\5 e''\5 |
  f''8\5 fis''\5 g''\5 gis''\5 a''\5 ais''\5 b''\5 c'''\5 |
  cis'''8\5 d'''\5 dis'''\5 e'''\5 f'''\5 fis'''\5 g'''\5
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Marc Hohl]

Case 1: I set an arbitrary bar (the manual calls it "bar check")


Because it is a *check*, not a bar line!

You insert bars by \bar "|" or \bar "|." or whatever, no by the bar 
*check* symbol alone, that's quite a difference.


Just my 2 ct,

Marc

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[bb]

Am 05.02.2018 um 14:02 schrieb Urs Liska:



Am 05.02.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

Am 04.02.2018 23:56, schrieb Simon Albrecht:

On 04.02.2018 14:19, bb wrote:
It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. 
If I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be 
something wrong with my code I cannot figure out?


Thanks for help

\version "2.19.80"
    \new TabStaff {
    \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = 
#fret-number-tablature-format-banjo

 \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #banjo-open-g-tuning
    %\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #(four-string-banjo 
banjo-c-tuning)


   \tabFullNotation
   \stemDown
 cis'''16\1 c'''16.\1 b''8\1 ais''8.\1 a''4\1 gis''4.\1 g''2\1 
fis''2.\1 f''1\1 e''1.\1 dis''\1 d''\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1 ais'\1 
a'\1 gis'\1 g'\1 fis'\1 f'\1 e'\1 dis'\1 d'\1 g'\3 ais''\2 a''\2 
e'\3 g''\2 fis''\2 f''\2 e''\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 c''\2 b'\2 
ais'\2 a'\2 gis'\2 g'\2 fis'\2 f'\2 e'\2 dis'\2 d'\2 cis'\2 c'\2 
b\2 g'\3 fis'\3 f'\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3 cis'\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 a\3 
gis\3 g\3 d'\4 cis'\4 c'\4 b\4 ais\4 a\4 gis\4 g\4 fis\4 f\4 e\4 
dis\4 d\4 d\4 dis\4 e\4 f\4 fis\4 g\4 gis\4 a\4 ais\4 b8\4 < c'\4 
cis'\4 d'\4 >4 < g''\5 gis''\5 a''\5 ais''\5 >8     }


First, that’s gruesome code formatting. Use line breaks to make your
code readable by splitting it into chunks that one may sensibly grasp.
Second, use bar checks in order to find rhythmic typos/errors.
Third, if you want breaks mid-note, use \remove 
"Forbid_line_break_engraver".


Best, Simon


This code is generated automaticly, nice isn't it?


No, it isn't.
If it *is* generated then nothing should stop you from generating it 
in a way that people you want to comment can actually read it.
Obviously that "endless string" is an  exciter? Frescobaldi will wrap 
the string if you change the editor preset in the menu.


As I have remarked, that the original long string was the output of a 
completestest written of a program for a program (therefore the "endless 
string") of an experimental program, not meant for any publication. It 
arrived the list because lilypond could not handle it in the 1st 
version. Certainly in the experimental phase I have to check it for 
corectniss and fed it into frescobaldi. Simply split it up:


list1 = str1.split( )
while (len(list1)):
    for word in list1[:5]:
    print(word, end = " ")
    print()
    list1 = list1[5:]

A for loop is possible as well. As frescobaldi is written mosty in 
python I have aded a simple python code. I have changed the string 
slightly so that lilypond does not have problems inserting tablines.

"Readable" result (change the parameters for another format):

fis'''4\1 f'''4\1 e'''4\1 dis'''4\1 d'''4\1
cis'''4\1 c'''4\1 b''4\1 ais''4\1 a''4\1
gis''4\1 g''4\1 fis''4\1 f''4\1 e''4\1
dis''\1 d''\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1
ais'\1 a'\1 gis'\1 g'\1 fis'\1
f'\1 e'\1 dis'\1 d'\1 dis'''4\2
d'''4\2 cis'''4\2 c'''4\2 b''\2 ais''\2
a''\2 gis''\2 g''\2 fis''\2 f''\2
e''\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 c''\2
b'\2 ais'\2 a'\2 gis'\2 g'\2
fis'\2 f'\2 e'\2 dis'\2 d'\2
cis'\2 c'\2 b\2 b''4\3 ais''4\3
a''4\3 gis''4\3 g''4\3 fis''4\3 f''4\3
e''4\3 dis''4\3 d''4\3 cis''4\3 c''4\3
b'4\3 ais'4\3 a'4\3 gis'\3 g'\3
fis'\3 f'\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3
cis'\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 a\3
gis\3 g\3 < a\3 c'\2
d'\1 >4 < ais'\1 gis'\2
f'\3 >8 d\4 dis\4 e\4
f\4 fis\4 g\4 gis\4 a\4
ais\4 b\4 c'\4 cis'\4 d'\4
dis'\4 e'\4 f'\4 fis'\4 g'\4
gis'\4 a'\4 ais'\4 b'8\4 c''\4
cis''\4 fis\4 dis''\4 e''\4 f''\4
fis''\4 g'\5 gis'\5 a'\5 ais'\5
b'\5 c''\5 cis''\5 d''\5 dis''\5
e''\5 f''\5 fis''\5 g''\5 gis''\5
a''\5 ais''\5 b''\5 c'''\5 cis'''\5
d'''\5 dis'''\5 e'''\5 f'''\5 fis'''\5
g'''\5




The editor preset of frescobaldi is NOT to wrap long text. Change it 
if you are annoyed.


That doesn't really help. if the code is as unstructure as this. OK, 
it is not the only way to happiness, but there are many good reasons 
to format one's code so that it wraps reasonably by itself, that is 
usually by not exceeding ~80 characters per line.

Or of course less if there's useful sectioning available.

See above.




The question of lilypond setting barlines or not automaticly is still 
open in my opinion.  Lilypond is a nice program but does not use its 
intelligence perfectly for the good of the user.


Programs that use their "intelligence" in a way you suggest they 
should tend to know better than their users, which is not always the 
best choice.
Music notation is an absolutely rule based system, most often for this 
"machines" are doing better than humans.




Beside: There is spread a rumour on the list that I want lilypond to 
override my settings if wrong or not. But indeed I like to get 
informed by a warning etc.


If you want a warning then simply use the tools LilyPond provides for 
that: barchecks (and bar number checks). They are a great way of 
making your code better to understand, BTW.

Again old arguments. Imagine two experiments:

Case 1: I set an arbitrary bar 

Re: endless tab?

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.02.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Blöchl Bernhard:

Am 04.02.2018 23:56, schrieb Simon Albrecht:

On 04.02.2018 14:19, bb wrote:
It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. 
If I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be 
something wrong with my code I cannot figure out?


Thanks for help

\version "2.19.80"
    \new TabStaff {
    \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = 
#fret-number-tablature-format-banjo

 \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #banjo-open-g-tuning
    %\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #(four-string-banjo 
banjo-c-tuning)


   \tabFullNotation
   \stemDown
 cis'''16\1 c'''16.\1 b''8\1 ais''8.\1 a''4\1 gis''4.\1 g''2\1 
fis''2.\1 f''1\1 e''1.\1 dis''\1 d''\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1 ais'\1 
a'\1 gis'\1 g'\1 fis'\1 f'\1 e'\1 dis'\1 d'\1 g'\3 ais''\2 a''\2 
e'\3 g''\2 fis''\2 f''\2 e''\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 c''\2 b'\2 
ais'\2 a'\2 gis'\2 g'\2 fis'\2 f'\2 e'\2 dis'\2 d'\2 cis'\2 c'\2 b\2 
g'\3 fis'\3 f'\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3 cis'\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 a\3 gis\3 
g\3 d'\4 cis'\4 c'\4 b\4 ais\4 a\4 gis\4 g\4 fis\4 f\4 e\4 dis\4 d\4 
d\4 dis\4 e\4 f\4 fis\4 g\4 gis\4 a\4 ais\4 b8\4 < c'\4 cis'\4 d'\4 
>4 < g''\5 gis''\5 a''\5 ais''\5 >8     }


First, that’s gruesome code formatting. Use line breaks to make your
code readable by splitting it into chunks that one may sensibly grasp.
Second, use bar checks in order to find rhythmic typos/errors.
Third, if you want breaks mid-note, use \remove 
"Forbid_line_break_engraver".


Best, Simon


This code is generated automaticly, nice isn't it?


No, it isn't.
If it *is* generated then nothing should stop you from generating it in 
a way that people you want to comment can actually read it.




The editor preset of frescobaldi is NOT to wrap long text. Change it 
if you are annoyed.


That doesn't really help. if the code is as unstructure as this. OK, it 
is not the only way to happiness, but there are many good reasons to 
format one's code so that it wraps reasonably by itself, that is usually 
by not exceeding ~80 characters per line.

Or of course less if there's useful sectioning available.



The question of lilypond setting barlines or not automaticly is still 
open in my opinion.  Lilypond is a nice program but does not use its 
intelligence perfectly for the good of the user.


Programs that use their "intelligence" in a way you suggest they should 
tend to know better than their users, which is not always the best choice.




Beside: There is spread a rumour on the list that I want lilypond to 
override my settings if wrong or not. But indeed I like to get 
informed by a warning etc.


If you want a warning then simply use the tools LilyPond provides for 
that: barchecks (and bar number checks). They are a great way of making 
your code better to understand, BTW.




I would appreciate the code David Kastrup sent me referred to this 
"gruesome code" (thanks) becoming part of lilypond standard to get 
such a message to help dummy users as myself.


Regards

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user



___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[David Kastrup]

Blöchl Bernhard  writes:

> Lilypond is a nice program but does not use its
> intelligence perfectly for the good of the user.

Tit for tat.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Karlin High]

On 2/5/2018 3:07 AM, Blöchl Bernhard wrote:

This code is generated automaticly, nice isn't it?


Some parts of that code read as if it had been "minified." The harder it 
is for humans to read, the harder it is for them to provide good help 
with it.


I've turned out my share of less-readable code, too. "Whew! Finally it 
did what I want!" Then someone asks, "Wow, how did you do that? May I 
see the code?" And I reply, "Well, I guess so, but I'm sort-of ashamed 
of it. Don't use this coding style as an example to follow."


Lilypond is a nice program but does not use its 
intelligence perfectly for the good of the user.


Do ANY computer programs do that? In my experience, most are simply 
tools that do some things well and other things not-so-well. My job is 
to figure out what they have to offer and how to make the best use of them.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Blöchl Bernhard]

Am 04.02.2018 23:56, schrieb Simon Albrecht:

On 04.02.2018 14:19, bb wrote:
It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. If 
I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be something 
wrong with my code I cannot figure out?


Thanks for help

\version "2.19.80"
    \new TabStaff {
    \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = 
#fret-number-tablature-format-banjo

 \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #banjo-open-g-tuning
    %\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #(four-string-banjo 
banjo-c-tuning)


   \tabFullNotation
   \stemDown
 cis'''16\1 c'''16.\1 b''8\1 ais''8.\1 a''4\1 gis''4.\1 g''2\1 
fis''2.\1 f''1\1 e''1.\1 dis''\1 d''\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1 ais'\1 a'\1 
gis'\1 g'\1 fis'\1 f'\1 e'\1 dis'\1 d'\1 g'\3 ais''\2 a''\2 e'\3 g''\2 
fis''\2 f''\2 e''\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 c''\2 b'\2 ais'\2 a'\2 
gis'\2 g'\2 fis'\2 f'\2 e'\2 dis'\2 d'\2 cis'\2 c'\2 b\2 g'\3 fis'\3 
f'\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3 cis'\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 a\3 gis\3 g\3 d'\4 cis'\4 
c'\4 b\4 ais\4 a\4 gis\4 g\4 fis\4 f\4 e\4 dis\4 d\4 d\4 dis\4 e\4 f\4 
fis\4 g\4 gis\4 a\4 ais\4 b8\4 < c'\4 cis'\4 d'\4 >4 < g''\5 gis''\5 
a''\5 ais''\5 >8     }


First, that’s gruesome code formatting. Use line breaks to make your
code readable by splitting it into chunks that one may sensibly grasp.
Second, use bar checks in order to find rhythmic typos/errors.
Third, if you want breaks mid-note, use \remove 
"Forbid_line_break_engraver".


Best, Simon


This code is generated automaticly, nice isn't it?

The editor preset of frescobaldi is NOT to wrap long text. Change it if 
you are annoyed.


The question of lilypond setting barlines or not automaticly is still 
open in my opinion.  Lilypond is a nice program but does not use its 
intelligence perfectly for the good of the user.


Beside: There is spread a rumour on the list that I want lilypond to 
override my settings if wrong or not. But indeed I like to get informed 
by a warning etc.


I would appreciate the code David Kastrup sent me referred to this 
"gruesome code" (thanks) becoming part of lilypond standard to get such 
a message to help dummy users as myself.


Regards

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.02.2018 14:19, bb wrote:
It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. If 
I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be something 
wrong with my code I cannot figure out?


Thanks for help

\version "2.19.80"
    \new TabStaff {
    \set TabStaff.tablatureFormat = 
#fret-number-tablature-format-banjo

 \set TabStaff.stringTunings = #banjo-open-g-tuning
    %\set TabStaff.stringTunings = #(four-string-banjo 
banjo-c-tuning)


   \tabFullNotation
   \stemDown
 cis'''16\1 c'''16.\1 b''8\1 ais''8.\1 a''4\1 gis''4.\1 g''2\1 
fis''2.\1 f''1\1 e''1.\1 dis''\1 d''\1 cis''\1 c''\1 b'\1 ais'\1 a'\1 
gis'\1 g'\1 fis'\1 f'\1 e'\1 dis'\1 d'\1 g'\3 ais''\2 a''\2 e'\3 g''\2 
fis''\2 f''\2 e''\2 dis''\2 d''\2 cis''\2 c''\2 b'\2 ais'\2 a'\2 
gis'\2 g'\2 fis'\2 f'\2 e'\2 dis'\2 d'\2 cis'\2 c'\2 b\2 g'\3 fis'\3 
f'\3 e'\3 dis'\3 d'\3 cis'\3 c'\3 b\3 ais\3 a\3 gis\3 g\3 d'\4 cis'\4 
c'\4 b\4 ais\4 a\4 gis\4 g\4 fis\4 f\4 e\4 dis\4 d\4 d\4 dis\4 e\4 f\4 
fis\4 g\4 gis\4 a\4 ais\4 b8\4 < c'\4 cis'\4 d'\4 >4 < g''\5 gis''\5 
a''\5 ais''\5 >8     }


First, that’s gruesome code formatting. Use line breaks to make your 
code readable by splitting it into chunks that one may sensibly grasp.

Second, use bar checks in order to find rhythmic typos/errors.
Third, if you want breaks mid-note, use \remove 
"Forbid_line_break_engraver".


Best, Simon

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[bb]

Changed the note duration to something that makes sense. (Originally was 
just an experiment for checking regex.) Works now.


Thanks.


Am 04.02.2018 um 14:54 schrieb David Kastrup:

bb  writes:


Thanks! If I try this, I get multiple warnings for different lines:
Crosses bar!

Even if I copy/paste the code you sent me back I get a lot of warnings.

Well, that's the idea.  LilyPond does not break across notes, so if you
have notes crossing bar lines, you'll not get line breaks.

My addition to your code _only_ was for giving you the warnings.




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[David Kastrup]

bb  writes:

> Thanks! If I try this, I get multiple warnings for different lines:
> Crosses bar!
>
> Even if I copy/paste the code you sent me back I get a lot of warnings.

Well, that's the idea.  LilyPond does not break across notes, so if you
have notes crossing bar lines, you'll not get line breaks.

My addition to your code _only_ was for giving you the warnings.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[bb]

Thanks! If I try this, I get multiple warnings for different lines: 
Crosses bar!


Even if I copy/paste the code you sent me back I get a lot of warnings.

Regards


Am 04.02.2018 um 14:34 schrieb David Kastrup:

bb  writes:


It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. If
I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be something
wrong with my code I cannot figure out?

Thanks for help

Does this help?





___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: endless tab?

[David Kastrup]

bb  writes:

> It is not really endless but the tab does not have any line break. If
> I try to insert \break this will be ignored? There must be something
> wrong with my code I cannot figure out?
>
> Thanks for help

Does this help?

\version "2.19.80"

\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\consists #(make-engraver
		(listeners
		 ((note-event self event)
		  (if (ly:moment4 < g''\5 gis''\5
			 a''\5 ais''\5 >8
}

-- 
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user