Frescobaldi: missing menu bar FIXED

[Graham King]

I'd like to record a fix, of sorts, for a missing menu bar in
Frescobaldi under a rather specific combination of circumstances. It
might help someone. Possibly future-me!

I run Frescobaldi on an Ubuntu 22.04 system, with an Apple-Mac-OS-X-
like KDE theme that puts the menus of the currently-focussed
application at the top of the screen.

Following a recent upgrade to KDE Plasma 6, the menus in Frescobaldi
completely disappeared.

You can force the menu bar to appear at the top of the application
window for all apps. To do this, go to System Settings -> Session ->
Background services and uncheck "Application menus daemon"

It might be necessary to restart your session for this to take effect.

It might be possible to create a specific exception for Frescobaldi,
using the KWin rule editor, accessed by right-clicking on the title bar
of the Frescobaldi window and selecting More Actions.
Unfortunately I've been unable to find a specific combination of
settings that work.

Re: FIXED: Re: Frescobaldi: Weird error with 3.3.0 (OT?)

[Stephan Schöll]

I can confirm that this is exactly the issue I've encountered ...
alongside with the solution I found on my own.

Am 03.05.2023 um 13:40 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:

Le dimanche 30 avril 2023 à 23:46 +0200, Stephan Schöll a écrit :

So to me it seems that the uninstaller doesn't do a clean job.



I wasn't aware of it, but it looks like this is a known problem.

https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/1252

Re: FIXED: Re: Frescobaldi: Weird error with 3.3.0 (OT?)

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le dimanche 30 avril 2023 à 23:46 +0200, Stephan Schöll a écrit :
> So to me it seems that the uninstaller doesn't do a clean job.


I wasn't aware of it, but it looks like this is a known problem.

https://github.com/frescobaldi/frescobaldi/issues/1252


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

FIXED: Re: Frescobaldi: Weird error with 3.3.0 (OT?)

[Stephan Schöll]

I tried to help with some C++ Redistributables according to advice in
some posts. But all failed saying that a newer version is already installed.

I tried to uninstall 3.3.0 and install 3.2 for comparison purposes. And
yet, some similar error occured. I uninstalled any Frescobaldi
installation and noticed that nevertheless there is a C:\Program Files
(x86)\Frescobaldi folder full of plenty of stuff, among many with Qt5 or
similar in their name.

So I removed this folder (asks for admin permissions) and reinstalled
3.3.0 - successfully ;-)

So to me it seems that the uninstaller doesn't do a clean job.

- Stephan

On 30.04.2023 20:11, Stephan Schöll wrote:

Jean,

It's an older Thinkpad, and I thought, that I always installed OS
updates timely when published / recommended.

But checking for this puzzled me: build 19044 seems to be 21H2, but when
checking for updates I get

I update installed SW quite frequently and never had issues with any of
them.


Am 29.04.2023 um 21:56 schrieb Jean Abou Samra:




Le 29 avr. 2023 à 21:37, Stephan Schöll  a écrit :



On one of my Windows 10 computers I updated Frescobaldi by

1. unistalling 3.0.1.

2. installing 3.3.0 with the installer from the Frescobaldi website

At the end of the installation process I guess the installer wants to
start Frescobaldi. But instead I get this message with references to
folders that definitely don't exist on my machine (C:\Python,
D:\Users\Jones...)




Don’t worry about these. They are paths on the machine of the person
who built the installer.



I uninstall and reinstalled again but without success.

Is there anybody who could give me some advice, either what to do or
where to post in case this is OT?



Unfortunately, the error message is not very helpful. (I dare hope
that on Linux you would at least have gotten the name of the missing
symbol.)

Anyway. Maybe your OS is too old? What precise version of Windows 10
is this? Did you upgrade it recently?

Re: \fixed

[Noeck]

What happens if you compile the file? Is \fixed just marked red or is
there an error when compiling? Older versions of Frescobaldi did not
know some commands and treat them as a warning in syntax highlighting
even though the installed LilyPond version might understand the syntax.

That being said, a completely red line usually indicates an error
reported by LilyPond. So the next question is: What LilyPond version are
you using?

Cheers,
Joram

Re: \fixed

[David Kastrup]

Ethan Sue  writes:

> In the past, I mostly used Weblily and recently started using Frescobaldi.
> When I used Weblily, I used \fixed. When I put those files into
> Frescobaldi, it highlights the line in red where the \fixed is. It also
> highlights lines in red where \new GrandStaff s are. All my older saved
> files use \fixed, and a lot of them use GrandStaves. Is there a way to fix
> this?

Use a LilyPond version of at least 2.19.22 ?  \fixed appears to have
been added with

commit c33bf5c5970339567889c5208fe78e538376414b
Author: Keith OHara 
Date:   Sat May 2 22:51:48 2015 -0700

absolute pitch entry: accept an offset octave


-- 
David Kastrup

\fixed

[Ethan Sue]

In the past, I mostly used Weblily and recently started using Frescobaldi.
When I used Weblily, I used \fixed. When I put those files into
Frescobaldi, it highlights the line in red where the \fixed is. It also
highlights lines in red where \new GrandStaff s are. All my older saved
files use \fixed, and a lot of them use GrandStaves. Is there a way to fix
this?

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[Aaron Hill]

On 2019-07-30 10:21 am, kimfierens wrote:
Unfortunately none of your proposed solutions produced entirely 
satisfactory
results. For some odd reason, the one note examples work pretty well, 
but as

soon as more notes are added to a staff, the staffs are whacked out of
alignment.


It would be helpful to see precisely what you are trying and the results 
you are getting.  Simply saying "more notes are added" and "whacked out 
of alignment" leaves us having to guess at what might be going wrong.



Additionally, I find it difficult to get all the snippets equal width.


Set paper and line width appropriately with ragged-right set to false.  
Consider:



\version "2.19.83"

#(set-global-staff-size 20)
\paper {
  #(set! paper-alist (cons '("custom" . (cons (* 1.5 in) (* 40 pt))) 
paper-alist))

  #(set-paper-size "custom")
  top-margin = 0 bottom-margin = 0 indent = 0
  line-width = 1.5\in ragged-right = ##f
  oddHeaderMarkup = ##f evenHeaderMarkup = ##f tagline = ##f
  top-system-spacing =
#'( (basic-distance . 0) (minimum-distance . 4)
(padding . -100) (stretchability . 0) )
  last-bottom-spacing =
#'( (basic-distance . 0) (minimum-distance . 0)
(padding . -100) (stretchability . 0) )
}

music = { \time 3/4 c'4 g' d'' | a''2. \bar "|." }
\score { \transpose c' g \music }
\score { \transpose c' c' \music }
\score { \transpose c' f' \music }


Results attached for reference.


-- Aaron Hill

top-system-spacing.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[Karlin High]

On 7/30/2019 12:21 PM, kimfierens wrote:

To be honest, it seems a bit disappointing that a sophisticated piece of
software (which LilyPond obviously is) seems unable to accomplish what the
18th century engraver probably took no more than a ruler and some elbow
grease.


LilyPond probably CAN do it somehow. It can even be used a graphical 
drawing app if someone desires. Examples in this thread:




The question is more about how much effort people are willing to put 
into their project, and whether they want a one-off, ad hoc result or 
something more generalized and elegant.


Oh, and I just remembered this thing from David Nalesnik...



...that generates a music lesson worksheet. It has a table definition of 
some sort that might be interesting for your use case. It's WAAAY over 
my head, I don't know how it works.

--
Karlin High
Missouri, USA

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

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[kieren_macmillan kieren_macmillan]

Hi all,

Sorry I’m late to the thread — I’m in Edinburgh with my [Lilypond-engraved!]
show at the Fringe.  =)

> Additionally, I find it difficult to get all the snippets equal width.

Seems like all of that would be dead simple by packing each score in a \markup
wrapper and then just placing them explicitly on the page. No?

Hope that helps!
Kieren.

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

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[kimfierens]

Hi Urs and Alexander,

Sorry about the late reply. I had some trouble getting LuaLaTeX set up
properly.

Unfortunately none of your proposed solutions produced entirely satisfactory
results. For some odd reason, the one note examples work pretty well, but as
soon as more notes are added to a staff, the staffs are whacked out of
alignment.

Additionally, I find it difficult to get all the snippets equal width.

To be honest, it seems a bit disappointing that a sophisticated piece of
software (which LilyPond obviously is) seems unable to accomplish what the
18th century engraver probably took no more than a ruler and some elbow
grease.



--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[Alexander Kobel]

Hi Urs, hi Kim,

On 29.07.19 11:10, Urs Liska wrote:
> Hi Kim (?),
> 
> 28. Juli 2019 22:59, "kimfierens"  schrieb:
> 
>> Hi everyone, I'm new to LilyPond, and I have a layout question for you. The
>> title says it all basically: how do I get LilyPond to put a fixed distance
>> between the upper page edge and the top line of the first staff, regardless
>> of any stuff (such as notes on ledger lines) that might stick out above the
>> staff?
> 
> First: Unfortunately LilyPond doesn't make this too easy because it doesn't 
> "think" like that. I have often wanted to achieve this in order to get facing 
> pages align vertically and produce a more consistent "type area", but to no 
> avail.

I don't agree. It's somewhat obscured by the fact that
top-system-spacing has a padding by default; but what about

\version "2.18"
#(set-default-paper-size "a6landscape")
\paper {
  top-system-spacing = #'((padding . -inf.0) (minimum-distance . 15))
  last-bottom-spacing = #'((padding . -inf.0) (minimum-distance . 15))
}
{
  c1 \break
  c,,1 \pageBreak
  c,,1 \break
  c1
}

(For real use, I recommend to use the a negative padding of something
less than minimum-distance minus 2, to make sure that you accidentally
crop something in extreme conditions.)


HTH,
Alex



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[Urs Liska]

Hi again,

sorry for the noise (although it might have triggered some thoughts that may 
prove useful down the road), but I have just found a pretty simple solution for 
your case:

{
  \omit Score.SystemStartBar
  \override Staff.StaffSymbol.Y-extent = #'(-5 . 15)
  c'1
}

will make LilyPond believe that the Staff has an extent of 5 staff spaces below 
and 15 above the middle line, and so the middle line will always have a 
distance from the top margin of *at least* 15 staff spaces.

I have just tested with this .tex file:

\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[insert=inline,inline-staffsize=20]{lyluatex}
\begin{document}

\begin{lilypond}[insert=inline]
{
  \omit Score.SystemStartBar
  \override Staff.StaffSymbol.Y-extent = #'(-5 . 20)
  c''1
}
\end{lilypond}
\begin{lilypond}[insert=inline]
{
  \omit Score.SystemStartBar
  \override Staff.StaffSymbol.Y-extent = #'(-5 . 20)
  g'''1
}
\end{lilypond}
\begin{lilypond}[insert=inline]
{
  \omit Score.SystemStartBar
  \override Staff.StaffSymbol.Y-extent = #'(-5 . 20)
  c'''1
}
\end{lilypond}
\end{document}

and got the attached result. I'm sure one can wrap this in a usable solution 
for your use case.

HTH
Urs

29. Juli 2019 11:10, "Urs Liska"  schrieb:

> Hi Kim (?),
> 
> 28. Juli 2019 22:59, "kimfierens"  schrieb:
> 
>> Hi everyone, I'm new to LilyPond, and I have a layout question for you. The
>> title says it all basically: how do I get LilyPond to put a fixed distance
>> between the upper page edge and the top line of the first staff, regardless
>> of any stuff (such as notes on ledger lines) that might stick out above the
>> staff?
> 
> First: Unfortunately LilyPond doesn't make this too easy because it doesn't 
> "think" like that. I
> have often wanted to achieve this in order to get facing pages align 
> vertically and produce a more
> consistent "type area", but to no avail.
> 
> However, if you are consistently dealing with single-system examples there 
> are some options. I'm
> not going into too much detail right now because we need a little more 
> information.
> 
> Basically what I *think* should be the easiest approach in your case is 
> basically "printing" a
> transparent rectangle behind the score that has fixed vertical dimensions and 
> which you know goes
> beyond the topmost possible score element. When then the top margin is set to 
> zero LilyPond will
> include the transparent rectangle, and you have the fixed vertical spacing.
> 
>> The reason why I'm asking this is that I wish to create (in LaTex) a
>> table/array of small musical snippets. For aesthetic reasons, it would be
>> nice if all the staff fragments within a table row were lined up vertically
>> at the same height, like this:
>> 
>> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t5872/Schermafbeelding_2019-07-28_om_22.png>
>> 
>> My idea is to create a very small page for each snippet and then export this
>> page as an eps file into LaTeX. Hence my question.
> 
> If you are working with LaTeX and don't mind using LuaLaTeX I would 
> definitely suggest *not* to do
> all that processing manually or in some external scripts but use lyluatex
> (http://ctan.org/pkg/lyluatex) to directly write the snippets into the LaTeX 
> document.
> 
> One more question: on the example you attached *nothing* protruded *below* 
> the staff lines. I
> assume this is not consistent with every examples you'll have? Because if 
> that would be the case
> you could use lyluatex's inline placement with bottom-alignment.
> (I just added an issue with an idea how that question could be handled in 
> lyluatex:
> https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/267)
> 
> HTH
> Urs
> 
>> Thanks for any tips and/or comments!
>> 
>> --
>> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
>> 
>> ___
>> 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


vertical-align.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[Urs Liska]

Hi Kim (?),


28. Juli 2019 22:59, "kimfierens"  schrieb:

> Hi everyone, I'm new to LilyPond, and I have a layout question for you. The
> title says it all basically: how do I get LilyPond to put a fixed distance
> between the upper page edge and the top line of the first staff, regardless
> of any stuff (such as notes on ledger lines) that might stick out above the
> staff?


First: Unfortunately LilyPond doesn't make this too easy because it doesn't 
"think" like that. I have often wanted to achieve this in order to get facing 
pages align vertically and produce a more consistent "type area", but to no 
avail.

However, if you are consistently dealing with single-system examples there are 
some options. I'm not going into too much detail right now because we need a 
little more information.

Basically what I *think* should be the easiest approach in your case is 
basically "printing" a transparent rectangle behind the score that has fixed 
vertical dimensions and which you know goes beyond the topmost possible score 
element. When then the top margin is set to zero LilyPond will include the 
transparent rectangle, and you have the fixed vertical spacing.

> 
> The reason why I'm asking this is that I wish to create (in LaTex) a
> table/array of small musical snippets. For aesthetic reasons, it would be
> nice if all the staff fragments within a table row were lined up vertically
> at the same height, like this:
> 
> <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t5872/Schermafbeelding_2019-07-28_om_22.png>
>  
> 
> My idea is to create a very small page for each snippet and then export this
> page as an eps file into LaTeX. Hence my question.

If you are working with LaTeX and don't mind using LuaLaTeX I would definitely 
suggest *not* to do all that processing manually or in some external scripts 
but use lyluatex (http://ctan.org/pkg/lyluatex) to directly write the snippets 
into the LaTeX document.

One more question: on the example you attached *nothing* protruded *below* the 
staff lines. I assume this is not consistent with every examples you'll have? 
Because if that would be the case you could use lyluatex's inline placement 
with bottom-alignment.
(I just added an issue with an idea how that question could be handled in 
lyluatex: https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/issues/267)

HTH
Urs

> 
> Thanks for any tips and/or comments! 
> 
> --
> Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html
> 
> ___
> 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

How to set a fixed distance between upper page edge and top line of first staff?

[kimfierens]

Hi everyone, I'm new to LilyPond, and I have a layout question for you. The
title says it all basically: how do I get LilyPond to put a fixed distance
between the upper page edge and the top line of the first staff, regardless
of any stuff (such as notes on ledger lines) that might stick out above the
staff?

The reason why I'm asking this is that I wish to create (in LaTex) a
table/array of small musical snippets. For aesthetic reasons, it would be
nice if all the staff fragments within a table row were lined up vertically
at the same height, like this:

<http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/file/t5872/Schermafbeelding_2019-07-28_om_22.png>
 

My idea is to create a very small page for each snippet and then export this
page as an eps file into LaTeX. Hence my question.

Thanks for any tips and/or comments! 




--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Vaughan McAlley]

On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 04:00, Gianmaria Lari 
wrote:
>
> I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond ml.
>
> I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I
decided to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative
mode is much more annoying than writing in fixed way
>
> But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor would
propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
>
> For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
>
> b'
>
>
> and then you type
>
> c
>
>
> What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
>
> This is just an idea.
> Best regards, g.
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

(Sorry for the duplicate Gianmaria, replied without adding lilypond-user)

This is what I use- it works in both relative and absolute mode. Still
Linux only because I haven't learned Python and QT just yet...

https://youtu.be/eh8mgF1CNAo?t=77

https://github.com/palestrina/lily-q

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.05.19 um 02:46 schrieb David Wright:



You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice

versa?

As can the   ly   standalone (derived from F~ possibly).


Sorry I don't understand.

ly, packaged as python3-ly in Debian, has a number of commands hived
off (I assume) from Fresco including: re-indent, reformat, translate
the language, transpose, abs2rel, rel2abs, simplify-accidentals, etc.


Originally ly was the module *inside* Frescobaldi handling all the stuff 
relating to the LilyPond input code. This includes functions like code 
formatting, musical changes, trying to keep track of where we are in the 
music etc.


At some point Wilbert decided to a) remove any dependencies on Qt (the 
application development framework used in Frescobaldi) from that code, 
b) factor it out into an external module and c) make a standalone script 
wrapping some of its functionality.


So a number of functions are available through that 'ly' command line 
script, and it's also possible to 'import ly' in Python programs. At 
some later point I also added an HTTP server wrapper so you could 
actually use 'ly' in a web application to submit your LilyPond code for 
processing in a website.


When Frescobaldi decided to completely move to Python 3, dropping all 
Python 2 compatibility efforts this was deliberately *not* applied to 
python-ly, so that is a plain Python 2/3 library that can be used from 
both Python versions, without any PyQt dependencies.


Just for some clarification.
Urs



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

python3-ly WAS Re: fixed vs relative

[Andrew Bernard]

HI David,

Well I am delighted utterly. I can't use Frescobaldi anymore as the program
takes minutes to position the cursor in my complex scores, due to issues
that have been discussed on detail on the lists. So I switched to gvim
(principally because the emacs lilypond mode is buggy and the indenting
does not work right), and even wrote a guide for people about how to set
this up for point and click on Ubuntu. But I keep having to fire up
Frescobaldi just to re-indent the code, which is tiresome and not very
fluent, and I have to put up with it being improperly indented until I do
this.

Now that you have wiped the dust from my eyes and shown me python3-ly and
the reformat command, I can just run this filter over the buffer in gvim.
Fantastic. A dream come true. I never imagined the reformatting code was
externalised from the core Frescoabdi code, so I never looked. I had begun
to think I have to write my own syntax level indenter to do the job.

I am indebted to you for this knowledge.

Andrew


On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 10:50, David Wright 
wrote:

>
> ly, packaged as python3-ly in Debian, has a number of commands hived
> off (I assume) from Fresco including: re-indent, reformat, translate
> the language, transpose, abs2rel, rel2abs, simplify-accidentals, etc.
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: fixed vs relative

[David Wright]

On Thu 09 May 2019 at 21:40:30 (+0200), Gianmaria Lari wrote:
> On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 21:32, David Wright  wrote:
> 
> > On Thu 09 May 2019 at 20:20:36 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> > > Gianmaria Lari  writes:
> > >
> > > > I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond
> > ml.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I
> > decided
> > > > to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative
> > mode is
> > > > much more annoying than writing in fixed way
> > > >
> > > > But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
> > > > relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor
> > would
> > > > propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
> > > >
> > > > For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
> > > >
> > > > b'
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and then you type
> > > >
> > > > c
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
> > > >
> > > > This is just an idea.
> > >
> > > You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice
> > versa?
> >
> > As can the   ly   standalone (derived from F~ possibly).
> >
> 
> Sorry I don't understand.

ly, packaged as python3-ly in Debian, has a number of commands hived
off (I assume) from Fresco including: re-indent, reformat, translate
the language, transpose, abs2rel, rel2abs, simplify-accidentals, etc.

> > But if you can coerce an editor into doing this trick, I would suggest
> > that absolute is a better target than fixed. Perhaps you meant that anyway.
> 
> What's the difference? I was thinking they were synonimus in lilypond
> talking.

AIUI, in \absolute, c' generates middle C and only middle C; in
\relative, c' generates a C which is at least a fifth above the
previous note; and in \fixed, c' generates a C within the octave
above the reference octave.

> > However, there may be a downside. With relative, a wrong decision on
> > one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
> > corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many
> > notes may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is
> > discovered.
> 
> Maybe you're right. Or maybe the fact to see clearly what the editor
> propose you (for each note) make you very self conscious of what you write.

The "wrong decision" that I was talking about was where you think a
note needs a tick (that the editor proposed) when it doesn't¹. The
mistake is only revealed when LP has run and the notehead (and those
following) is an octave off the correct position.

> Generally I appreciate the autocomplete feature even if I found it making
> my though less fluent (but maybe it's better :))

¹ or vice versa.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Urs Liska]

Am 9. Mai 2019 21:40:30 MESZ schrieb Gianmaria Lari :
>On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 21:32, David Wright 
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu 09 May 2019 at 20:20:36 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
>> > Gianmaria Lari  writes:
>> >
>> > > I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the
>lilypond
>> ml.
>> > >
>> > > I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally
>I
>> decided
>> > > to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in
>relative
>> mode is
>> > > much more annoying than writing in fixed way
>> > >
>> > > But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music
>in
>> > > relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your
>editor
>> would
>> > > propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
>> > >
>> > > For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
>> > >
>> > > b'
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > and then you type
>> > >
>> > > c
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
>> > >
>> > > This is just an idea.
>> >
>> > You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice
>> versa?
>>
>> As can the   ly   standalone (derived from F~ possibly).
>>
>
>Sorry I don't understand.
>

He refers to the Python script 'ly'. This is indeed a standalone version. I've 
the code powering Frescobaldi's handling of LilyPond code.


>
>> But if you can coerce an editor into doing this trick, I would
>suggest
>> that absolute is a better target than fixed. Perhaps you meant that
>anyway.
>>
>
>What's the difference? I was thinking they were synonimus in lilypond
>talking.
>
>
>> However, there may be a downside. With relative, a wrong decision on
>> one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
>> corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many
>> notes may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is
>> discovered.
>>
>
>Maybe you're right. Or maybe the fact to see clearly what the editor
>propose you (for each note) make you very self conscious of what you
>write.
>
>Generally I appreciate the autocomplete feature even if I found it
>making
>my though less fluent (but maybe it's better :))
>g.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> David.
>>

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Urs Liska]

Am 9. Mai 2019 21:52:49 MESZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>David Wright  writes:
>
>> one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
>> corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many notes
>> may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is discovered.
>
>I was of the opinion that Frescobaldi can transpose regions.  That
>should be usable for octave-shifting, shouldn't it?

Yes, but it can quickly become cumbersome. The function works upon a selection 
in the document. I'd say that chances are that once you're in need of 
correction after the fact you may not have a continuous section with the same 
error. What about mis-octavized chord notes for example? They might well be 
wrongnkn different ways.
.Urs

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Gianmaria Lari]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 21:32, David Wright  wrote:

> On Thu 09 May 2019 at 20:20:36 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> > Gianmaria Lari  writes:
> >
> > > I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond
> ml.
> > >
> > > I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I
> decided
> > > to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative
> mode is
> > > much more annoying than writing in fixed way
> > >
> > > But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
> > > relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor
> would
> > > propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
> > >
> > > For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
> > >
> > > b'
> > >
> > >
> > > and then you type
> > >
> > > c
> > >
> > >
> > > What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
> > >
> > > This is just an idea.
> >
> > You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice
> versa?
>
> As can the   ly   standalone (derived from F~ possibly).
>

Sorry I don't understand.


> But if you can coerce an editor into doing this trick, I would suggest
> that absolute is a better target than fixed. Perhaps you meant that anyway.
>

What's the difference? I was thinking they were synonimus in lilypond
talking.


> However, there may be a downside. With relative, a wrong decision on
> one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
> corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many
> notes may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is
> discovered.
>

Maybe you're right. Or maybe the fact to see clearly what the editor
propose you (for each note) make you very self conscious of what you write.

Generally I appreciate the autocomplete feature even if I found it making
my though less fluent (but maybe it's better :))
g.





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

Re: fixed vs relative

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
> corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many notes
> may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is discovered.

I was of the opinion that Frescobaldi can transpose regions.  That
should be usable for octave-shifting, shouldn't it?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[David Wright]

On Thu 09 May 2019 at 20:20:36 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote:
> Gianmaria Lari  writes:
> 
> > I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond ml.
> >
> > I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I decided
> > to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative mode is
> > much more annoying than writing in fixed way
> >
> > But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
> > relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor would
> > propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
> >
> > For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
> >
> > b'
> >
> >
> > and then you type
> >
> > c
> >
> >
> > What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
> >
> > This is just an idea.
> 
> You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice versa?

As can the   ly   standalone (derived from F~ possibly).

But if you can coerce an editor into doing this trick, I would suggest
that absolute is a better target than fixed. Perhaps you meant that anyway.

However, there may be a downside. With relative, a wrong decision on
one note has a dramatic effect on the following music, but is easily
corrected with one tick. When this trick has been applied, many
notes may have to be individually tickled after the mistake is
discovered.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[Gianmaria Lari]

On Thu, 9 May 2019 at 20:20, David Kastrup  wrote:

> Gianmaria Lari  writes:
>
> > I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond
> ml.
> >
> > I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I
> decided
> > to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative mode
> is
> > much more annoying than writing in fixed way
> >
> > But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
> > relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor
> would
> > propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
> >
> > For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
> >
> > b'
> >
> >
> > and then you type
> >
> > c
> >
> >
> > What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
> >
> > This is just an idea.
>
> You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice versa?
>

Sure! And the conversion from relative to fixed is the first operation I do
with Frescobaldi each time I interact with a score written in relative
mode.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: fixed vs relative

[Urs Liska]

Am 9. Mai 2019 20:20:36 MESZ schrieb David Kastrup :
>Gianmaria Lari  writes:
>
>> I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the
>lilypond ml.
>>
>> I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I
>decided
>> to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative
>mode is
>> much more annoying than writing in fixed way
>>
>> But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
>> relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor
>would
>> propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
>>
>> For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
>>
>> b'
>>
>>
>> and then you type
>>
>> c
>>
>>
>> What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
>>
>> This is just an idea.
>
>You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice
>versa?

I don't know if Gianmaria is aware of that, but (although I don't write in 
absolute mode myself) I can imagine that an autocomplete-style feature could be 
nice.

This should not be too hard to do in Frescobaldi - if "someone" would we 
interested in doing it ...

Urs

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

Re: fixed vs relative

[David Kastrup]

Gianmaria Lari  writes:

> I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond ml.
>
> I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I decided
> to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative mode is
> much more annoying than writing in fixed way
>
> But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
> relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor would
> propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?
>
> For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after
>
> b'
>
>
> and then you type
>
> c
>
>
> What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?
>
> This is just an idea.

You know that Frescobaldi can convert absolute to relative and vice versa?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

fixed vs relative

[Gianmaria Lari]

I saw the discussion about fixed vs relative few times in the lilypond ml.

I think it's a lot about personal taste and habit and personally I decided
to stick to fixed mainly because I find fixing mistakes in relative mode is
much more annoying than writing in fixed way

But what if the editor would help a bit? What if you enter music in
relative mode (don't worrying to specify the octave) but your editor would
propose the "correct" (nearest) octave to add?

For example suppose your cursor is immediatly after

b'


and then you type

c


What if the editor proposes to autocomplete with '' ?

This is just an idea.
Best regards, g.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Fixed [was Re: Lilypond is not generating a pdf file]

[Peter Horan]

Hi Aaron

> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 06:57:28 -0700
> From: Aaron Hill 
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Lilypond is not generating a pdf file
> Message-ID: <55f4d3d5c00209db6b25aeb1c670a...@hillvisions.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On 2018-05-27 01:07, Peter Horan wrote:
> > I have previously used Lilypond on an older machine using Vista.
> >
> > This machine is new, running Windows 10.
> >
> > After installation, dropping test.ly onto the Lilypond short cut
> > creates a test.log file but no pdf file as expected.  It looks as
> > though Lilypond is silently quitting before drawing everything.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Which version of LilyPond did you install?  Also, if you run "winver",
> what exact build of the OS are you using?

LilyPond v. 2.18.2
Windows Version 1803 (OS Build 17134.48)
>
> The closest similar behavior I have seen to this is when I am trying to
> regenerate a PDF but that PDF is currently open in another program.
> Then due to a sharing violation, LilyPond is unable to write to the
> file.  However, in your case, you are never getting a PDF at all, but
> that could still imply the target folder might be an invalid
> destination.

No file was open.

> NOTE: I never use drag-and-drop method as you mentioned.  LilyPond
> installs a default shell command for .ly files, so you can either just
> double-click them or right-click and select "Generate".  There shouldn't
> really be any major difference in behavior here, but I thought I would
> mention this for completeness.

Now this worked!

I also tried dropping the .ly file onto the actual executable file, and that 
also worked. But, where the log file went I don't know.

> If you want to debug further, I might suggest running Process Monitor
> [1] from Sysinternals.  It will capture a lot of data, but you can
> filter it down to just the relevant file I/O.  Most importantly, what
> you are looking for is to see if LilyPond (or one of its child
> processes) is actually attempting to open a PDF for write, and if so
> what error may have occurred.
>
> [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/procmon

I have used procmon, so I may investigate if I get time.

Important Notice: The contents of this email are intended solely for the named 
addressee and are confidential; any unauthorised use, reproduction or storage 
of the contents is expressly prohibited. If you have received this email in 
error, please delete it and any attachments immediately and advise the sender 
by return email or telephone.

Deakin University does not warrant that this email and any attachments are 
error or virus free.

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

Set a fixed width for a bar

[paolo prete]

Hello,

In the snippet below, is there a way to force bar 2 (e' e' e' e')  to have

1) a fixed width with a given number
2) a fixed width = 40% of the entire staff

...?

Thanks

{
  c' c' c' c' | \noBreak
  e' e' e' e' | \noBreak
  f' f' f' f' | \break
  r1
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Automatic vertical spacing when *some* values are fixed

[Urs Liska]

Hi David,

thanks but that doesn't help, because no, I'm no "setting quartets" but 
"anything":



Am 14.02.2018 um 01:30 schrieb David Wright:

until I find something that promises
to work generically (i.e. when I don't know the actual music and
page layout beforehand)?

IIRC you're setting quartets, so two systems of 4 staves on each page.


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

Re: Automatic vertical spacing when *some* values are fixed

[David Wright]

On Tue 13 Feb 2018 at 21:41:01 (+0100), Urs Liska wrote:

> I know that the music can't be properly printed with the given
> combination of paper size, margins and staffsize. But I want
> LilyPond to prefer the solution with two systems per page (in this
> example) because the compressed variant is *really* inacceptable.
> 
> Using further paper variables is of no help either. Of course, if
> I'd want to engrave that certain piece I'd experiment along these
> lines too, but that's not what I'm after.
> I'm working on a LaTeX package that includes scores in text
> documents and matches the layout as good as possible.
> While it is trivial to set the margins to exactly match the LaTeX
> ones I don't really like that solution because the pages will look
> uneven when the top margin does not match the stafflines but the
> top-most element. What I would like to achieve is something like
> this: 
> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1812148/35498550-1780de08-04cf-11e8-9553-2bb1aabbe33e.png
> 
> And actually it was possible to achieve it by fixing the margins of
> the staff, but it turns out that this will often result in
> absolutely inacceptable global spacing of the score.
> 
> Does all that finally mean I'll have to experiment with all the
> elements of the paper variables until I find something that promises
> to work generically (i.e. when I don't know the actual music and
> page layout beforehand)?

IIRC you're setting quartets, so two systems of 4 staves on each page.
Can you not just set their vertical positions explicitly as outlined
in §4.4.2 of NR. This might give a very uniform appearance.

\overrideProperty Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn.line-break-system-details 
#'((Y-offset . 0))

Other than that, my only suggestion is a workflow of one system per
page into a PDF → cropping (pdfcrop) → burst pages → \includegraphics
(in LaTeX) which gives you more vertical control of the systems.
But I might have suggested that already, to you or somebody else.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Automatic vertical spacing when *some* values are fixed

[Urs Liska]

Hi Torsten,

thank you for these experiments and thoughts which will probably bring 
me forward. Although they essentially miss the point - probably I should 
have copied more information from the earlier thread.


Am 13.02.2018 um 20:45 schrieb Torsten Hämmerle:

Hi Urs,

With the top and bottom fixed, the only flexibility left lies in varying the
distances between systems and staves.
Unfortunately, the system-system-spacing has a default minimum distance of 8
(between the systems) and squeezing three systems into one page seems to be
better than stretching them too far apart.

I'd play around with system-system-spacing.minimum-distance.

1st attempt: When setting minimum-distance to 11, thus forcing a wider
distance between systems, LilyPond still complains about compressing (and
it's even worse).
Now, there is much more compression within the stave groups. No, that's not
good, either...

Even pushing up system-system-spacing.minimum-distance to 12 still squeezes
three systems on page 1, but only two on page 2 (because of the p standing
out in the last line).
That's just (!) because of the p in Vc bar 14., one might say.
So a tiny difference in hairpins, stems, ... makes a huge difference in the
resulting layout (three systems or two systems per page).
This looks awful and very unbalanced. But there's nothing in between: it's
either two or three systems per page.

Setting system-system-spacing.minimum-distance to 13, finally pushes the
systems so far apart that only two systems (but consistently at last) fit on
one page.

Doesn't look too good, either... No, none of the solutions really works.


The example file I gave is not the challenge I need to solve, it's just 
an example where the problem becomes very visible. My actual problem is 
that when I specify the margins the way I do (by setting stretchability 
of a number of variables to zero) LilyPond makes different decisions 
regarding page breaking than with the usual top-margin/bottom-margin layout.





*The actual problem*
The space available on the page does not at all go well with the system size
for a string quartet.
Just reduce the stave size and everything will fit neatly...

Sometimes, I just use one of the system-count, systems-per-page,
min-systems-per-page oder max-systems-per-page paper variables to achieve a
uniform number of systems on all pages.


I know that the music can't be properly printed with the given 
combination of paper size, margins and staffsize. But I want LilyPond to 
prefer the solution with two systems per page (in this example) because 
the compressed variant is *really* inacceptable.


Using further paper variables is of no help either. Of course, if I'd 
want to engrave that certain piece I'd experiment along these lines too, 
but that's not what I'm after.
I'm working on a LaTeX package that includes scores in text documents 
and matches the layout as good as possible.
While it is trivial to set the margins to exactly match the LaTeX ones I 
don't really like that solution because the pages will look uneven when 
the top margin does not match the stafflines but the top-most element. 
What I would like to achieve is something like this: 
https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/1812148/35498550-1780de08-04cf-11e8-9553-2bb1aabbe33e.png


And actually it was possible to achieve it by fixing the margins of the 
staff, but it turns out that this will often result in absolutely 
inacceptable global spacing of the score.


Does all that finally mean I'll have to experiment with all the elements 
of the paper variables until I find something that promises to work 
generically (i.e. when I don't know the actual music and page layout 
beforehand)?


Best
Urs



HTH
Torsten





--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

___
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: Automatic vertical spacing when *some* values are fixed

[Torsten Hämmerle]

Hi Urs,

With the top and bottom fixed, the only flexibility left lies in varying the
distances between systems and staves.
Unfortunately, the system-system-spacing has a default minimum distance of 8
(between the systems) and squeezing three systems into one page seems to be
better than stretching them too far apart.

I'd play around with system-system-spacing.minimum-distance.

1st attempt: When setting minimum-distance to 11, thus forcing a wider
distance between systems, LilyPond still complains about compressing (and
it's even worse).
Now, there is much more compression within the stave groups. No, that's not
good, either...

Even pushing up system-system-spacing.minimum-distance to 12 still squeezes
three systems on page 1, but only two on page 2 (because of the p standing
out in the last line).
That's just (!) because of the p in Vc bar 14., one might say.
So a tiny difference in hairpins, stems, ... makes a huge difference in the
resulting layout (three systems or two systems per page).
This looks awful and very unbalanced. But there's nothing in between: it's
either two or three systems per page.

Setting system-system-spacing.minimum-distance to 13, finally pushes the
systems so far apart that only two systems (but consistently at last) fit on
one page.

Doesn't look too good, either... No, none of the solutions really works.


*The actual problem*
The space available on the page does not at all go well with the system size
for a string quartet.
Just reduce the stave size and everything will fit neatly...

Sometimes, I just use one of the system-count, systems-per-page,
min-systems-per-page oder max-systems-per-page paper variables to achieve a
uniform number of systems on all pages.

HTH
Torsten





--
Sent from: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/User-f3.html

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

Automatic vertical spacing when *some* values are fixed

[Urs Liska]

Hi all,

recently 
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-01/msg00576.html) 
I asked about how to use the vertical spacing variables to force the top 
system to an absolute position, which I could achieve with the 
basic-distance and minimal-distance of top-system-spacing and its 
stretchability set to 0.


However, this setting proves to have serious side-effects for vertical 
spacing in general as it seems to encourage LilyPond to squeeze much 
more music on a page. I will have a few questions related to this 
challenge, but I'll start with the most pressing (sorry for the pun) one 
with this email.


Attached you'll find a score with some quartet music in it. You can 
compile it with the vertical margins set through top-margin and 
bottom-margin or through the paper spacing variables.


With the paper variables (which is also the saved state in the 
attachment) LilyPond squeezes three systems on the page, severely 
compressing the music, while with the regular top-margin/bottom-margin 
settings only two systems are put on the page.

(Behaviour is basically the same in 2.18 and 2.19.80.)

My suspicion is that when forcing *some* stretchability values to zero 
the other flexible variables wreak havoc.


Is there a way to force these absolute top and bottom values and still 
have acceptable (or even beautiful) overall vertical spacing?


For your reference: I need this because I want to strictly align the top 
and bottom system of a score to the type area of the surrounding text 
document (this is also where the strange values are from, they are 
calculated from the LaTeX document).


Any suggestions?

Thanks
Urs

%%File header
\version "2.18.2"

\paper{
#(set-paper-size "a5")
print-page-number = ##f
print-first-page-number = ##t
first-page-number = 8
inner-margin = 35.091735839844\pt
left-margin = 35.091735839844\pt
%top-margin = 27\pt
%bottom-margin = 52\pt
% {
top-margin = 0\pt
bottom-margin = 0\pt
top-system-spacing =
#'((basic-distance . 11.958465576172)
   (minimum-distance . 11.958465576172)
   (padding . 0)
   (stretchability . 0))
top-markup-spacing =
#'((basic-distance . 11.958465576172)
   (minimum-distance . 11.958465576172)
   (padding . 0)
   (stretchability . 0))
last-bottom-spacing =
#'((basic-distance . 19.243121337891)
   (minimum-distance . 19.243121337891)
   (padding . 0)
   (stretchability . 0))
%}
two-sided = ##t
line-width = 315.82562255859\pt

}

\header {
%  title=Beethoven
  tagline = ##f
  copyright = ##f
}

global = {
  \key f \major
  \numericTimeSignature
  \time 3/4
  \tempo "Allegro con brio"
}

scoreAViolinI = \relative f' {
  \global
  f4 \p ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  c4 r r |
  f4  ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |

  f'4 \< ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  g2 \> ( bes,4) |
  a2 \! ( d8. bes16 ) |
  a2( g4 ) |

  f4 \f ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  c4 r r |
  f4  ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |

  f'4 \p ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  a2 ( \< g4 ) \> |
  g4 \! ~ g8 ( a16 g ) fis8 -. g -. |
  bes2 ( a4 ) |
  a4 \! ~ a8 ( bes16 a ) g8 -. a -. |
  c4. ( bes8 a g ) |


}

scoreAViolinII = \relative f' {
  \global
  % Music follows here.
  f4 \p ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |
  bes'2. ~ \< |
  bes2 \> ( g4 ) |
  f2 \! ( bes8. g16 ) |
  f2 ( e4 ) |

  f4 \f ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |
  R2. |
  e'2.\p % espressivo missing!|
  R2. |
  c2. |
  R2. |
  es4. ( d8 c bes ) |


}

scoreAViola = \relative f {
  \global
  f4 \p ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |
  d'2. \< ( |
  c2. \> ) ~  |
  c4 \! ( d f, ) |
  c'8 _( b c b c4 )

  f,4 \f ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |
  R2.
  bes''2. \p |
  R2. |
  es2. |
  R2. |
  fis,4. ( g8 a bes ) |

}

scoreACello = \relative f {
  \global
  f4 \p ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r
  d2. \< ( |
  e2. \> ) ( |
  f4 ) \! ( d bes ) |
  c2.

  f4 \f ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-.
  c4 r r |
  f4 ~ f8 ( g16 f ) e8-. f-. |
  d4 r r |
  R2.
  cis'2. \p |
  R2.
  \break
  fis2. |
  \once \override MultiMeasureRest.Y-extent = #'(-5 . 1)
  R2.
  bes,4. bes8 bes bes  |

}

scoreAViolinIPart = \new Staff \with {
  instrumentName = "Vl. I"
} \scoreAViolinI

scoreAViolinIIPart = \new Staff \with {
  instrumentName = "Vl. II"
} \scoreAViolinII

scoreAViolaPart = \new Staff \with {
  instrumentName = "Vla."
} { \clef alto \scoreAViola }

scoreACelloPart = \new Staff \with {
  instrumentName = "Vc."
} { \clef bass \scoreACello }

\score {
  \new StaffGroup <<
\scoreAViolinIPart
\scoreAViolinIIPart
\scoreAViolaPart
\scoreACelloPart
  >>
  \layout { }
}
___
lilypond-user 

Re: fixed vertical spacing within staff-group

[Malte Meyn]

Hi Eby,

I cannot see the problem. To me it looks as if it worked as expected. I 
won’t dig further into that because your file is more than 350 lines of 
code.


Please always keep things on-list.

Am 30.12.2017 um 17:49 schrieb Eby Mani:

Hi Malte, I'm working on BWV1016 for Violin and Organ, the output is transposed 
to F Maj. Do let me know how to set fixed vertical spacing for staff-group. 
Please reply thru the lilypond user list and do not share the file on the list. 
Thanks.


On Fri, 29/12/17, Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de> wrote:
  \override
  StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.padding = #-inf.0
  \override
  StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.stretchability = 0
  \override
  StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.basic-distance = 10
  \override
  StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.minimum-distance = 10


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

Re: fixed vertical spacing within staff-group

[Eby Mani]

Hi Malte, the reason why i did not include the minimal working(4 to 10 
measures), is the output looks good, without spacing issues. I have tried your 
suggestion and it is not fixing the spacing issue. I will mail the full file, 
so that you can see the problem. Thanks.


On Fri, 29/12/17, Malte Meyn <lilyp...@maltemeyn.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: fixed vertical spacing within staff-group
 To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
 Date: Friday, 29 December, 2017, 5:21 PM
 
 
 
 Am 29.12.2017 um 05:30 schrieb Eby Mani:
 > Hi,
 > 
 > How to set fixed vertical spacing within
 staff-group ?.
 
 Hi,
 
 please always give a minimal
 working (and compilable) code example that 
 shows what you are doing currently.
 
 > I have tried the following in \layout {
 \context } section. Vertical spacing keep on varying if
 there are beams, ledger lines or cross-staff notation. Even
 tried with padding=#0. Without the StaffGrouper, spacing is
 somewhat ok(but i feel little more spacing is required),
 except the cross-staff part.
 > 
 > \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.padding = #2
 > \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.basic-distance =
 #6
 
 Have a look at http://joramberger.de/files/LilypondSpacing.pdf
 Because 
 you didn’t provide code, I
 cannot test, but I think, something like the 
 following might work:
 
 \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.padding = #-inf.0
 \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.stretchability = 0
 \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.basic-distance = 10
 \override
 StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.minimum-distance = 10
 
 ___
 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: fixed vertical spacing within staff-group

[Malte Meyn]

Am 29.12.2017 um 05:30 schrieb Eby Mani:

Hi,

How to set fixed vertical spacing within staff-group ?.


Hi,

please always give a minimal working (and compilable) code example that 
shows what you are doing currently.



I have tried the following in \layout { \context } section. Vertical spacing 
keep on varying if there are beams, ledger lines or cross-staff notation. Even 
tried with padding=#0. Without the StaffGrouper, spacing is somewhat ok(but i 
feel little more spacing is required), except the cross-staff part.

\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.padding = #2
\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.basic-distance = #6


Have a look at http://joramberger.de/files/LilypondSpacing.pdf Because 
you didn’t provide code, I cannot test, but I think, something like the 
following might work:


\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.padding = #-inf.0
\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.stretchability = 0
\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.basic-distance = 10
\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.minimum-distance = 10

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

Re: \fixed absolute octave entry without brackets

[Simon Albrecht]

On 21.12.2016 00:57, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 21.12.2016 00:23, Gianmaria Lari wrote:

Is there any way to avoid this additional bracket?


It’s funny how for the second time in 7 hours I get to reply with

\resetRelativeOctave 


Oh man, I need to go to sleep. Obviously, since you’re using absolute 
mode, that’s not the way.

So, no, there’s no way to prevent the additional level of brackets.

Best, Simon

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

Re: \fixed absolute octave entry without brackets

[Simon Albrecht]

On 21.12.2016 00:23, Gianmaria Lari wrote:

Is there any way to avoid this additional bracket?


It’s funny how for the second time in 7 hours I get to reply with

\resetRelativeOctave

:-)

I already made a patch to document it in the NR.

Best, Simon

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

\fixed absolute octave entry without brackets

[Gianmaria Lari]

Few months ago I switched from relative to absolute octave entry.

In the rare cases I need to write very high or very low octave notes and
consequently I need to write too much single quote ( ' ) or comma ( , ) I
use the "\fixed" function that I just discovered (before I was using
"\transpose")

\fixed works perfectly but it adds a further bracket level. Is there any
way to avoid this additional bracket? For example instead of writing:

\fixed c''' %all the music INSIDE the brackets is relative to c'''
{

c d e f

}

\fixed c,,, %all the music INSIDE the brackets is relative to c,,,
{

c d e f

}


just write

\fixed c'''  %all the music STARTING FROM here is relative to c'''
c d e f

\fixed c,,,  %all the music STARTING FROM here is relative to c'''
c d e f


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

Re: layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[Mark Knoop]

 Am 23.03.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Nikolai Hedler:
  Would you like to enlighten me, then? Or do you mean to recommend
 that I just use the hackish workaround?


Actually the following works perfectly well in a single file:

\version 2.18.2

#(set-global-staff-size 15)
\book {
\bookOutputName score
\score { ... }
\paper {
#(set-paper-size a3 'portrait)
}
}

#(set-global-staff-size 20)
\book {
\bookOutputName part_1
\score { ... }
\paper {
#(set-paper-size b4 'portrait)
}
}

\book {
\bookOutputName part_2
\score { ... }
\paper {
#(set-paper-size b4 'portrait)
}
}


--
Mark Knoop

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

Re: layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[Nikolai Hedler]

I see that this may have been worked on in 2.19 as Issue 216
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=216can=1q=layout-set-staff-sizecolspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary;
can someone update me as to the current status?

On 23 March 2015 at 16:47, Nikolai Hedler nhed...@gmail.com wrote:



 On 23 March 2015 at 16:40, Kieren MacMillan kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
  wrote:

 Hi Nikolai,

  Is there any reason not to fix a known bug that's been around for this
 long that's been a pain in the neck since I started using LilyPond?

 If you don’t see any reason, then please send in a patch for review.


 How would I do this? I assume that by this you mean that I should fix it
 myself, which I would if I knew anything about how LilyPond is coded, but
 I'm a full-time student, and as such can't really afford to take the time
 to teach myself all about it. The main purpose of this is to inquire as to
 any reason why it hasn't been addressed already.


  My goal is to be able to create a single file which outputs a book
 including a score and all parts, where the score is staff-size 15 and the
 parts are 18 or 20

 I do that exact thing all the time.
 While more syntactic sugar would certainly make it even easier, I've
 never found it to be a particular pain in the neck.


 Would you like to enlighten me, then? Or do you mean to recommend that I
 just use the hackish workaround?

 Thanks,
 Nikolai Hedler

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

layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[Nikolai Hedler]

https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=367can=1q=layout-set-staff-sizecolspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary
This is a bug which has been known about since 2.11 in 2007, but for some
reason someone decided that it didn't deserve fixing, in spite of the fact
that there isn't really another way that I know of to do the same thing. Is
there any reason not to fix a known bug that's been around for this long
that's been a pain in the neck since I started using LilyPond?

This http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=862 is a workaround, not a fix.
It shouldn't be necessary to use an \override to change an entire score
when there's a function intended for that purpose.

My goal is to be able to create a single file which outputs a book
including a score and all parts, where the score is staff-size 15 and the
parts are 18 or 20, but I apparently need to use several overrides which
may or may not result in the same output that would result from
set-global-staff-size or a functional layout-set-staff-size.

Thanks in advance,
Nikolai Hedler
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[tisimst]

Nikolai,

I don't believe that there isn't a solution already for your needs (it
appears that Kieren already has some ideas, I think I have an idea or two
for you, and I think there are other users that have their own ideas about
how you can accomplish this), but it would be tremendously helpful if you
could show some code (either inline or in an attached file) for what you
described above so we can understand better what you are trying to achieve.
I think many regular followers of this list really want to help you out,
but some specific code would make it a lot easier for us to do so.
Otherwise, we can only speculate what you have and haven't tried.

Hope to hear from you soon!

Regards,
Abraham

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Simon Albrecht-2 [via Lilypond] 
ml-node+s1069038n173543...@n5.nabble.com wrote:

 Am 23.03.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Nikolai Hedler:

 I see that this may have been worked on in 2.19 as Issue 216
 https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=216can=1q=layout-set-staff-sizecolspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary;
 can someone update me as to the current status?

 On 23 March 2015 at 16:47, Nikolai Hedler [hidden email]
 http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=173543i=0 wrote:



 On 23 March 2015 at 16:40, Kieren MacMillan [hidden email]
 http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=173543i=1 wrote:

 Hi Nikolai,

  Is there any reason not to fix a known bug that's been around for this
 long that's been a pain in the neck since I started using LilyPond?

 If you don’t see any reason, then please send in a patch for review.


  How would I do this? I assume that by this you mean that I should fix
 it myself, which I would if I knew anything about how LilyPond is coded,
 but I'm a full-time student, and as such can't really afford to take the
 time to teach myself all about it. The main purpose of this is to inquire
 as to any reason why it hasn't been addressed already.

   For the same reason: everybody who works on lilypond does so in their
 free time (except for David Kastrup, who also does very good to concentrate
 on the things he can do best and which are most important). So it’s not a
 matter of “does this bug need to be fixed?” but of “do I have time, skills,
 nothing more important to do _and_ a good mind to fix this bug?”.
 So moderate your tone.


  My goal is to be able to create a single file

 Well, there’s another obvious workaround: use multiple files and
 \include. It’s not a crucial point that you have to compile one more .ly
 file.

 which outputs a book including a score and all parts, where the score
 is staff-size 15 and the parts are 18 or 20

 I do that exact thing all the time.
 While more syntactic sugar would certainly make it even easier, I've
 never found it to be a particular pain in the neck.


  Would you like to enlighten me, then? Or do you mean to recommend that
 I just use the hackish workaround?

   Or \magnifyStaff…
 The multitude of easily available solutions is one reason why this issue
 has been closed.

 Yours, Simon

 ___
 lilypond-user mailing list
 [hidden email] http:///user/SendEmail.jtp?type=nodenode=173543i=2
 https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


 --
  If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
 below:

 http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/layout-set-staff-size-will-it-ever-be-fixed-tp173538p173543.html
  To start a new topic under User, email ml-node+s1069038n...@n5.nabble.com
 To unsubscribe from Lilypond, click here
 http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_codenode=2code=dGlzaW1zdC5saWx5cG9uZEBnbWFpbC5jb218Mnw4MzU3Njg3MDU=
 .
 NAML
 http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewerid=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.namlbase=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespacebreadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml





--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/layout-set-staff-size-will-it-ever-be-fixed-tp173538p173544.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Nikolai,

 Is there any reason not to fix a known bug that's been around for this long 
 that's been a pain in the neck since I started using LilyPond?

If you don’t see any reason, then please send in a patch for review.

 My goal is to be able to create a single file which outputs a book including 
 a score and all parts, where the score is staff-size 15 and the parts are 18 
 or 20

I do that exact thing all the time.
While more syntactic sugar would certainly make it even easier, I've never 
found it to be a particular pain in the neck.

Best regards,
Kieren.
___

Kieren MacMillan, composer
www:  http://www.kierenmacmillan.info
email:  i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: layout-set-staff-size: will it ever be fixed?

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 23.03.2015 um 21:53 schrieb Nikolai Hedler:
I see that this may have been worked on in 2.19 as Issue 216 
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=216can=1q=layout-set-staff-sizecolspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Stars%20Owner%20Patch%20Needs%20Summary; 
can someone update me as to the current status?


On 23 March 2015 at 16:47, Nikolai Hedler nhed...@gmail.com 
mailto:nhed...@gmail.com wrote:




On 23 March 2015 at 16:40, Kieren MacMillan
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca
mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:

Hi Nikolai,

 Is there any reason not to fix a known bug that's been
around for this long that's been a pain in the neck since I
started using LilyPond?

If you don’t see any reason, then please send in a patch for
review.


How would I do this? I assume that by this you mean that I should
fix it myself, which I would if I knew anything about how LilyPond
is coded, but I'm a full-time student, and as such can't really
afford to take the time to teach myself all about it. The main
purpose of this is to inquire as to any reason why it hasn't been
addressed already.

For the same reason: everybody who works on lilypond does so in their 
free time (except for David Kastrup, who also does very good to 
concentrate on the things he can do best and which are most important). 
So it’s not a matter of “does this bug need to be fixed?” but of “do I 
have time, skills, nothing more important to do _and_ a good mind to fix 
this bug?”.

So moderate your tone.



 My goal is to be able to create a single file

Well, there’s another obvious workaround: use multiple files and 
\include. It’s not a crucial point that you have to compile one more .ly 
file.


which outputs a book including a score and all parts, where
the score is staff-size 15 and the parts are 18 or 20

I do that exact thing all the time.
While more syntactic sugar would certainly make it even
easier, I've never found it to be a particular pain in the neck.


Would you like to enlighten me, then? Or do you mean to recommend
that I just use the hackish workaround?


Or \magnifyStaff…
The multitude of easily available solutions is one reason why this issue 
has been closed.


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

RE:Stem length at a fixed height

[Stephen MacNeil]

How is this

\version 2.18.2


myMusic = \transpose c c, {

\key ees\major

\tag myStaff { ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }

% = here's a workaround, using brackets, but gives warnings:

\tag myTab {

ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }

}


\score {

\new StaffGroup 

\new Staff \keepWithTag myStaff \myMusic

\new TabStaff \keepWithTag myTab \myMusic



\layout {

\context {

\Staff

\clef F_8

\numericTimeSignature

}

\context {

\TabStaff

stringTunings = #bass-tuning

\clef moderntab

\tabFullNotation

\stemDown

\override Beam.positions = #'(-3.5 . -3.5)

\omit TimeSignature

\override Stem.details.lengths = #'(5)

\omit TextScript

}

}

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

Re: Stem length at a fixed height

[Thomas Morley]

2015-03-05 18:46 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
 Hi,

 In a tablature, full notation, I need to get the stem length at the same
 level as the predefined beam position.
 Today I use a workaround that gives a bunch of warnings:

 \version 2.18.2

 myMusic = \transpose c c, {
   \key ees\major
   \tag myStaff { ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }
   % = here's a workaround, using brackets, but gives warnings:
   \tag myTab { ees8 ees16 f f[ f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f] }
 }

 \score {
   \new StaffGroup 
 \new Staff \keepWithTag myStaff \myMusic
 \new TabStaff \keepWithTag myTab \myMusic
   
   \layout {
 \context {
   \Staff
   \clef F_8
   \numericTimeSignature
 }
 \context {
   \TabStaff
   stringTunings = #bass-tuning
   \clef moderntab
   \tabFullNotation
   \stemDown
   \override Beam.positions = #'(-3.5 . -3.5)
   \omit TimeSignature
   \omit TextScript
 }
   }
 }

 Has anyone a brilliant idea to fix that ?

 TIA,
 Pierre



Hi Pierre,

how about:

\version 2.18.2

equal-tab-staff-stems =
#(define-music-function (parser location val)(number?)
#{
  \override Stem.direction =
#(lambda (grob)
  (if (negative? val)
  DOWN
  UP))

  \override Stem.after-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
  (let* ((stem-begin-position (ly:grob-property grob 'stem-begin-position)))
;; the override for Beam.positions counts from staff-position 0
;; thus we need to go there for the (unbeamed) stem-length as well
  ;; beam-thickness is taken from engraver-init.ly:
  (ly:grob-set-property! grob
'length
(+ (if (negative? val)
   stem-begin-position
   (- stem-begin-position))
   (* (abs val) 2)
   ;; beam-thickness:
   0.32

  \override Beam.positions = #(cons val val)
#})

myMusic = \transpose c c, {
  \key ees\major
  ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 f c f, aes8 g16 f
}

\score {
  \new StaffGroup 
\new Staff \myMusic
\new TabStaff \myMusic
  
  \layout {
\context {
  \Staff
  \clef F_8
  \numericTimeSignature
}
\context {
  \TabStaff
stringTunings = #bass-tuning
\clef moderntab
\tabFullNotation
\equal-tab-staff-stems -3.5
\omit TimeSignature
\omit TextScript
}
  }
}


HTH,
  Harm

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

Re: Stem length at a fixed height

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi Stephen,

Fixing the stem length means that I'll have to manually change it for each
bass string.
My fault, my example should have bean more explicit.
Thanks for giving a try anyway.

Cheers,
Pierre


2015-03-05 23:39 GMT+01:00 Stephen MacNeil classicalja...@gmail.com:

 How is this

 \version 2.18.2


 myMusic = \transpose c c, {

 \key ees\major

 \tag myStaff { ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }

 % = here's a workaround, using brackets, but gives warnings:

 \tag myTab {

 ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }

 }


 \score {

 \new StaffGroup 

 \new Staff \keepWithTag myStaff \myMusic

 \new TabStaff \keepWithTag myTab \myMusic

 

 \layout {

 \context {

 \Staff

 \clef F_8

 \numericTimeSignature

 }

 \context {

 \TabStaff

 stringTunings = #bass-tuning

 \clef moderntab

 \tabFullNotation

 \stemDown

 \override Beam.positions = #'(-3.5 . -3.5)

 \omit TimeSignature

 \override Stem.details.lengths = #'(5)

 \omit TextScript

 }

 }

 }


 ___
 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: Stem length at a fixed height

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Just great!
Thank you very much Harm for this smart solution and the detailed answer.

Cheers,
Pierre

2015-03-06 0:10 GMT+01:00 Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@gmail.com:

 2015-03-05 18:46 GMT+01:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider
 pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com:
  Hi,
 
  In a tablature, full notation, I need to get the stem length at the same
  level as the predefined beam position.
  Today I use a workaround that gives a bunch of warnings:
 
  \version 2.18.2
 
  myMusic = \transpose c c, {
\key ees\major
\tag myStaff { ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }
% = here's a workaround, using brackets, but gives warnings:
\tag myTab { ees8 ees16 f f[ f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f] }
  }
 
  \score {
\new StaffGroup 
  \new Staff \keepWithTag myStaff \myMusic
  \new TabStaff \keepWithTag myTab \myMusic

\layout {
  \context {
\Staff
\clef F_8
\numericTimeSignature
  }
  \context {
\TabStaff
stringTunings = #bass-tuning
\clef moderntab
\tabFullNotation
\stemDown
\override Beam.positions = #'(-3.5 . -3.5)
\omit TimeSignature
\omit TextScript
  }
}
  }
 
  Has anyone a brilliant idea to fix that ?
 
  TIA,
  Pierre



 Hi Pierre,

 how about:

 \version 2.18.2

 equal-tab-staff-stems =
 #(define-music-function (parser location val)(number?)
 #{
   \override Stem.direction =
 #(lambda (grob)
   (if (negative? val)
   DOWN
   UP))

   \override Stem.after-line-breaking =
 #(lambda (grob)
   (let* ((stem-begin-position (ly:grob-property grob
 'stem-begin-position)))
 ;; the override for Beam.positions counts from staff-position 0
 ;; thus we need to go there for the (unbeamed) stem-length as well
   ;; beam-thickness is taken from engraver-init.ly:
   (ly:grob-set-property! grob
 'length
 (+ (if (negative? val)
stem-begin-position
(- stem-begin-position))
(* (abs val) 2)
;; beam-thickness:
0.32

   \override Beam.positions = #(cons val val)
 #})

 myMusic = \transpose c c, {
   \key ees\major
   ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 f c f, aes8 g16 f
 }

 \score {
   \new StaffGroup 
 \new Staff \myMusic
 \new TabStaff \myMusic
   
   \layout {
 \context {
   \Staff
   \clef F_8
   \numericTimeSignature
 }
 \context {
   \TabStaff
 stringTunings = #bass-tuning
 \clef moderntab
 \tabFullNotation
 \equal-tab-staff-stems -3.5
 \omit TimeSignature
 \omit TextScript
 }
   }
 }


 HTH,
   Harm

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

Stem length at a fixed height

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi,

In a tablature, full notation, I need to get the stem length at the same
level as the predefined beam position.
Today I use a workaround that gives a bunch of warnings:

\version 2.18.2

myMusic = \transpose c c, {
  \key ees\major
  \tag myStaff { ees8 ees16 f f f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f }
  % = here's a workaround, using brackets, but gives warnings:
  \tag myTab { ees8 ees16 f f[ f aes8~ aes4 aes8 g16 f] }
}

\score {
  \new StaffGroup 
\new Staff \keepWithTag myStaff \myMusic
\new TabStaff \keepWithTag myTab \myMusic
  
  \layout {
\context {
  \Staff
  \clef F_8
  \numericTimeSignature
}
\context {
  \TabStaff
  stringTunings = #bass-tuning
  \clef moderntab
  \tabFullNotation
  \stemDown
  \override Beam.positions = #'(-3.5 . -3.5)
  \omit TimeSignature
  \omit TextScript
}
  }
}

Has anyone a brilliant idea to fix that ?

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

Re: Fixed width measures

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.03.2015 um 08:34 schrieb Brian Barker:

At 11:37 05/03/2015 +1100, Andrew Bernard wrote:
I have asked this question on the list in the past, but no solution 
seems to be available. The topic is fixed width measures. I have 
contemporary music that has lots of complex tuplets within tuplets 
and rapidly varying time signatures (New Complexity School). The 
composer I am working with draws all his scores by hand, and uses a 
fixed measure width notation to help the performer understand the 
very complex rhythms, with a fixed physical measure length 
corresponding to a specific fixed interval of time. Actually, several 
composers do this.


I have tried everything to do with proportional notation and new 
spacing sections but I can't seem to succeed. Is there any way to 
instruct lilypond to use a fixed length, absolute size measure?


I see that others have wanted this capability for fixed width 
measures for chord charts, overriding the lovely and subtle way that 
lilypond has of moving the bar lines on the page around a little for 
readability and aesthetics.


I am attaching the smallest most simplified snippet I can make that 
shows unequal measures. If anybody can make something like this have 
fixed width measures, let me know!


I am aware that this goes entirely against classical engraving 
principles, and all of lilypond's aesthetic architecture, but it is 
2015 now! Does this require internal code hacking of the layout 
engine somewhere deep down below the user level? It's frustrating to 
be defeated by a man with a pencil who can simply rule lines! :-)


o Insert indent = 0 - so that your first system is the same length 
as the other.


o Change the value in proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 
1/20) to 1/28 - following the advice in the Notation manual: How do 
we select the right reference duration to pass to 
proportionalNotationDuration? Usually by a process of trial and error, 
beginning with a duration close to the fastest (or smallest) duration 
in the piece.


Now I see three systems, each with two bars of exactly equal length.

At smaller staff sizes, I can see two systems of three bars each - but 
they are not quite of equal length. The problem seems to be the time 
signature, occurring in only the first system. Can you put up with no 
time signature? Or with time signatures in both systems? Or (probably 
best) with an invisible time signature (to take up appropriate space) 
in subsequent systems?


Or put the time signature in a separate context, as in the last example 
of http://lilypondblog.org/2014/05/independent-meters/


One solution hasn't been mentioned so far - but I agree that this is a 
hack and it would be nice to have a stable solution built-in to LilyPond.


You can override the minimal-length of MultiMeasureRest and add an 
invisible layer with (only) MultiMeasureRests. This will cause all 
measures to have _at least_ that length. So the limitation is that you 
have to take care that this minimal length is long enough for all your 
measures.


HTH
Urs


Brian Barker

___
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: Fixed width measures

[Simon Albrecht]

Am 05.03.2015 um 09:21 schrieb Urs Liska:



Am 05.03.2015 um 08:34 schrieb Brian Barker:

At 11:37 05/03/2015 +1100, Andrew Bernard wrote:
I have asked this question on the list in the past, but no solution 
seems to be available. The topic is fixed width measures. I have 
contemporary music that has lots of complex tuplets within tuplets 
and rapidly varying time signatures (New Complexity School). The 
composer I am working with draws all his scores by hand, and uses a 
fixed measure width notation to help the performer understand the 
very complex rhythms, with a fixed physical measure length 
corresponding to a specific fixed interval of time. Actually, 
several composers do this.


I have tried everything to do with proportional notation and new 
spacing sections but I can't seem to succeed. Is there any way to 
instruct lilypond to use a fixed length, absolute size measure?


I see that others have wanted this capability for fixed width 
measures for chord charts, overriding the lovely and subtle way that 
lilypond has of moving the bar lines on the page around a little for 
readability and aesthetics.


I am attaching the smallest most simplified snippet I can make that 
shows unequal measures. If anybody can make something like this have 
fixed width measures, let me know!


I am aware that this goes entirely against classical engraving 
principles, and all of lilypond's aesthetic architecture, but it is 
2015 now! Does this require internal code hacking of the layout 
engine somewhere deep down below the user level? It's frustrating to 
be defeated by a man with a pencil who can simply rule lines! :-)


o Insert indent = 0 - so that your first system is the same length 
as the other.


o Change the value in proportionalNotationDuration = 
#(ly:make-moment 1/20) to 1/28 - following the advice in the 
Notation manual: How do we select the right reference duration to 
pass to proportionalNotationDuration? Usually by a process of trial 
and error, beginning with a duration close to the fastest (or 
smallest) duration in the piece.


Now I see three systems, each with two bars of exactly equal length.

At smaller staff sizes, I can see two systems of three bars each - 
but they are not quite of equal length. The problem seems to be the 
time signature, occurring in only the first system. Can you put up 
with no time signature? Or with time signatures in both systems? Or 
(probably best) with an invisible time signature (to take up 
appropriate space) in subsequent systems?


Or put the time signature in a separate context, as in the last 
example of http://lilypondblog.org/2014/05/independent-meters/


One solution hasn't been mentioned so far - but I agree that this is a 
hack and it would be nice to have a stable solution built-in to LilyPond.


You can override the minimal-length of MultiMeasureRest and add an 
invisible layer with (only) MultiMeasureRests. This will cause all 
measures to have _at least_ that length. So the limitation is that you 
have to take care that this minimal length is long enough for all your 
measures.
Plus, (presuming ragged-right = ##f) you’d have to adapt it to 
line-length, which probably is a daunting trial-and-error task…


~ Simon

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

Fixed width measures

[Andrew Bernard]

Greetings all,

I have asked this question on the list in the past, but no solution seems to be 
available. The topic is fixed width measures. I have contemporary music that 
has lots of complex tuplets within tuplets and rapidly varying time signatures 
(New Complexity School). The composer I am working with draws all his scores by 
hand, and uses a fixed measure width notation to help the performer understand 
the very complex rhythms, with a fixed physical measure length corresponding to 
a specific fixed interval of time. Actually, several composers do this.

I have tried everything to do with proportional notation and new spacing 
sections but I can’t seem to succeed. Is there any way to instruct lilypond to 
use a fixed length, absolute size measure?

I see that others have wanted this capability for fixed width measures for 
chord charts, overriding the lovely and subtle way that lilypond has of moving 
the bar lines on the page around a little for readability and aesthetics.

I am attaching the smallest most simplified snippet I can make that shows 
unequal measures. If anybody can make something like this have fixed width 
measures, let me know!

I am aware that this goes entirely against classical engraving principles, and 
all of lilypond’s aesthetic architecture, but it is 2015 now! Does this require 
internal code hacking of the layout engine somewhere deep down below the user 
level? It’s frustrating to be defeated by a man with a pencil who can simply 
rule lines! :-)

Andrew





unequal-measures.ly
Description: Binary data
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fixed width measures

[Simon Albrecht]

Hi Andrew,

I tried some things with some success: if there are only two bars per 
line and ther is no indent, the bars are _almost_ the same width. I 
don’t have any idea why this is imprecise, though.


HTH, Simon

P.S. I also did some reformatting to the code, which in my eyes much 
improves the readability…


Am 05.03.2015 um 01:37 schrieb Andrew Bernard:

Greetings all,

I have asked this question on the list in the past, but no solution 
seems to be available. The topic is fixed width measures. I have 
contemporary music that has lots of complex tuplets within tuplets and 
rapidly varying time signatures (New Complexity School). The composer 
I am working with draws all his scores by hand, and uses a fixed 
measure width notation to help the performer understand the very 
complex rhythms, with a fixed physical measure length corresponding to 
a specific fixed interval of time. Actually, several composers do this.


I have tried everything to do with proportional notation and new 
spacing sections but I can’t seem to succeed. Is there any way to 
instruct lilypond to use a fixed length, absolute size measure?


I see that others have wanted this capability for fixed width measures 
for chord charts, overriding the lovely and subtle way that lilypond 
has of moving the bar lines on the page around a little for 
readability and aesthetics.


I am attaching the smallest most simplified snippet I can make that 
shows unequal measures. If anybody can make something like this have 
fixed width measures, let me know!


I am aware that this goes entirely against classical engraving 
principles, and all of lilypond’s aesthetic architecture, but it is 
2015 now! Does this require internal code hacking of the layout engine 
somewhere deep down below the user level? It’s frustrating to be 
defeated by a man with a pencil who can simply rule lines! :-)


Andrew





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


\version 2.19.16
\paper
{
  % A4 version.
  #(set-paper-size a4 'landscape)
  indent = 0
  top-margin = 20\mm
  bottom-margin = 16\mm
  left-margin = 16\mm
  right-margin = 16\mm

  myStaffSize = #20
}

aux = \repeat unfold 3 { s1*2 \break }

upper = \relative c'' {
  \time 4/4
  \clef treble
  \key c \major

  
{
  \voiceOne
  \stemDown
  \override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = ##t
  c,4 c c c |
  \tupletDown
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  c4 c c c |
  bes' bes bes bes |
  a a a a |
  \tuplet 7/4 {c,16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
  \tuplet 7/4 {c16 bes c bes c d bes }
}
\\
{
  \voiceThree
  \override TupletBracket.bracket-visibility = ##t
  \tuplet 9/8 { c8[ d e f g f d b c] } |
  \tuplet 7/8 { d f g a e f c } |
  \tuplet 13/8 { d g bes a f c d a' f d e d g }
  \tuplet 3/8 { f d cis } |
  \tuplet 5/8 { cis ees d f d } |
}
  
}

lower = \relative c' {
  \time 4/4

  \clef bass
  \key c \major

  \voiceOne
  c,1 |
  bes |
  a |
  g |
  a |
  bes |
}

\score {
  \new PianoStaff 
\new Staff = treble \new Voice 
  \upper
  \aux

\new Staff = bass \lower
  

  \layout {
\context {
  \Score
  proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/20)
  \override SpacingSpanner.uniform-stretching = ##t
}
  }
}

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

Re: Fixed width measures

[Brian Barker]

At 11:37 05/03/2015 +1100, Andrew Bernard wrote:
I have asked this question on the list in the past, but no solution 
seems to be available. The topic is fixed width measures. I have 
contemporary music that has lots of complex tuplets within tuplets 
and rapidly varying time signatures (New Complexity School). The 
composer I am working with draws all his scores by hand, and uses a 
fixed measure width notation to help the performer understand the 
very complex rhythms, with a fixed physical measure length 
corresponding to a specific fixed interval of time. Actually, 
several composers do this.


I have tried everything to do with proportional notation and new 
spacing sections but I can't seem to succeed. Is there any way to 
instruct lilypond to use a fixed length, absolute size measure?


I see that others have wanted this capability for fixed width 
measures for chord charts, overriding the lovely and subtle way that 
lilypond has of moving the bar lines on the page around a little for 
readability and aesthetics.


I am attaching the smallest most simplified snippet I can make that 
shows unequal measures. If anybody can make something like this have 
fixed width measures, let me know!


I am aware that this goes entirely against classical engraving 
principles, and all of lilypond's aesthetic architecture, but it is 
2015 now! Does this require internal code hacking of the layout 
engine somewhere deep down below the user level? It's frustrating to 
be defeated by a man with a pencil who can simply rule lines! :-)


o Insert indent = 0 - so that your first system is the same length 
as the other.


o Change the value in proportionalNotationDuration = 
#(ly:make-moment 1/20) to 1/28 - following the advice in the 
Notation manual: How do we select the right reference duration to 
pass to proportionalNotationDuration? Usually by a process of trial 
and error, beginning with a duration close to the fastest (or 
smallest) duration in the piece.


Now I see three systems, each with two bars of exactly equal length.

At smaller staff sizes, I can see two systems of three bars each - 
but they are not quite of equal length. The problem seems to be the 
time signature, occurring in only the first system. Can you put up 
with no time signature? Or with time signatures in both systems? Or 
(probably best) with an invisible time signature (to take up 
appropriate space) in subsequent systems?


Brian Barker  



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

Fixed ledger line width with no dimension.

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi All,

Please find herewith my last attempt to reach a kind of modern and easy
gregorian notation (see previous discussion here :

http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/kind-of-gregorian-moving-noteheads-tc170995.html
and here :

http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Hungarian-Gregorian-tc171130.html).


And I'm stucked for some days now: Since note heads should stick together,
ledger lines desapear (or are hidden by the note heads, see attached pic).

So I'm looking for a way to fix the leger line length without any dimension
so that no gap would remain.


TIA for any help,

Cheers

Pierre


modernGregorian.ily
Description: Binary data
\version 2.18.2
\include modernGregorian.ily

\paper { 
  indent = 0
}

sanctus = \transpose c c' {
  \clef G
  \key a\major
  \omit Stem
  \melisma { d \lst e } e 
  \bar |
  \melisma { 
\lst e \sli c \lst d \tli c \tli b, r d \lst f \tli e 
  }
  \melisma { d \lst e } e
  \once\override Staff.BarLine.bar-extent = #'(0 . 2) \bar |
  \melisma { e \lst g r a \lst b } \melisma { \lst a \tli g \tli f \tli e }
  \melisma { 
f \lst a \mli e \sli c \lst d \tli c \tli
b, -\tweak extra-offset #'(1 . -2.5) \orn 
r r \lst f \tli e f \lst g 
  } \melisma { \lst f \tli e }
  \bar ||
}

sanctusLyrics = \lyricmode {
  mi -- ni.
  Ho -- sán -- na in ex -- cél -- sis.
}

\score {
  
\cadenzaOn
\new Voice = Sanctus \sanctus
\new Lyrics \lyricsto Sanctus \sanctusLyrics
  
  \layout {
ragged-right = ##f
\context {
  \Lyrics
  \override VerticalAxisGroup.staff-affinity = ##f
}
  }
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: BarNumber vertical positioning won't stay fixed relative to Staff/system

[Kevin Barry]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Kieren MacMillan 
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:

 This may be related to the fact that I have a ScoreMarks (a.k.a. MarkLine)
 context at the top of my score:


Have you tried removing bar numbers from the Score context and placing them
in the Staff context instead? viz.

\layout {
\context {
  \Score
  \remove Bar_number_engraver
}
\context {
  \Staff
  \consists Bar_number_engraver
}
  }
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: BarNumber vertical positioning won't stay fixed relative to Staff/system

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Kevin,

 Have you tried removing bar numbers from the Score context and placing them 
 in the Staff context instead? viz.
 
 \layout {
 \context {
   \Score
   \remove Bar_number_engraver
 }
 \context {
   \Staff
   \consists Bar_number_engraver
 }
   }

Nice! This solves the problem completely for this one-Staff score (e.g., linear 
instrumental part).
No doubt a similar incantation (e.g., on PianoStaff) will work for my other 
scores — I’ll have to check that when I get back to them.

Thanks!
Kieren.

___

Kieren MacMillan, composer
www:  http://www.kierenmacmillan.info
email:  i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: BarNumber vertical positioning won't stay fixed relative to Staff/system

[Kevin Barry]

On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Kieren MacMillan 
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca wrote:

 Nice! This solves the problem completely for this one-Staff score (e.g.,
 linear instrumental part).
 No doubt a similar incantation (e.g., on PianoStaff) will work for my
 other scores — I’ll have to check that when I get back to them.


For multi-staff scores just add the bar number engraver individually to the
uppermost staff:

\new Staff \with { \consists Bar_number_engraver }

If memory serves, it doesn't work if you try adding it to a PianoStaff
context (just add it to the right-hand staff).
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fixed distance between staves in all systems

[Knute Snortum]

I'm in the same position and I used

\override StaffGrouper.staff-staff-spacing.minimum-distance = #10

I'm not positive that is the best solution, but it's a start.


Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)

On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:34 PM, Javier Ruiz-Alma jav...@ruiz-alma.com
wrote:

 I'm in the process of upgrading LP code from version 2.2.0 to 2.18.

 In the following section:

 %%%- start snip
 \layout{
 \context {
  \PianoStaff
  \accepts Dynamics
  \override VerticalAlignment.forced-distance = #6
  }
  }
 %%%- end snip

 Not being familiar with such early LP version, I'm assuming the original
 typesetter set a fixed distance between the staves in each system
 throughout the piece.

 Convert-ly is unable to update this forced distance override, giving this
 warning:
 ...2.11.15, Not smart enough to convert VerticalAlignment
 #'forced-distance. Use the `alignment-
 offsets' sub-property of NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-system-details
 to set fixed distances between staves. 2.11.23, 2.11.35,...

 I'm not understanding how to re-create the intended forced distance
 between each staff with the relevant section of NR, as the examples given
 involve vertical positioning of each staff within a page:

 http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-staff-and-system-positioning


 Any ideas of how to set this?

 ___
 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

Fixed distance between staves in all systems

[Javier Ruiz-Alma]

I'm in the process of upgrading LP code from version 2.2.0 to 2.18.

In the following section:
%%%- start snipp, li { white-space: pre-wra\layout{ \context { 
\PianoStaff \accepts Dynamics \override 
VerticalAlignment.forced-distance = #6 } }%%%- end snip
Not being familiar with such early LP version, I'm assuming the original 
typesetter set a fixed distance between the staves in each system throughout 
the piece.

Convert-ly is unable to update this forced distance override, giving this 
warning:...2.11.15, Not smart enough to convert VerticalAlignment 
#'forced-distance. Use the `alignment-offsets' sub-property of 
NonMusicalPaperColumn #'line-break-system-details to set fixed distances 
between staves. 2.11.23, 2.11.35,...
I'm not understanding how to re-create the intended forced distance between 
each staff with the relevant section of NR, as the examples given involve 
vertical positioning of each staff within a 
page:http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-staff-and-system-positioning

Any ideas of how to set this?
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: How to make staff spacing with lyrics fixed

[Knute Snortum]

Do you have a small input file that illustrated the problem?


Knute Snortum
(via Gmail)

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Carl Peterson carlopeter...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hey all,

 How do I get the spacing between lyrics and the surrounding staves to be
 equal and fixed, regardless of whether noteheads/stems collide with the
 lyrics? I've tried a number of different combinations of settings and can't
 get the stems ignored.

 Also, I noticed that the spacing depends on whether the lyric letters have
 any descenders. Any way to make it based on the baseline?

 Thanks,

 Carl P.

 ___
 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

How to make staff spacing with lyrics fixed

[Carl Peterson]

Hey all,

How do I get the spacing between lyrics and the surrounding staves to be
equal and fixed, regardless of whether noteheads/stems collide with the
lyrics? I've tried a number of different combinations of settings and can't
get the stems ignored.

Also, I noticed that the spacing depends on whether the lyric letters have
any descenders. Any way to make it based on the baseline?

Thanks,

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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 13:27 -0500, David Nalesnik wrote:
 Richard,
 
 
 On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Richard Shann
 rich...@rshann.plus.com wrote:
 On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 16:00 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
  Hello Richard,
 
  \set Score.bars-per-line-engraver '(4))
 
 Thanks -
 I can't get that to compile, and indeed I can't track down
 bars-per-line-engraver in the 2.18 docs, but I see it in
 snippets (see
 below).
 
 
  http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=838
 
 
 You set the bars per line as part of the \consist; you can't use \set.

yes, I guessed that maybe Jacques had been writing from memory and
thought it best not to leave potentially wrong syntax to be picked up by
others. I am very foggy about \consists \with and so on...
As I remarked earlier, getting the line breaks in is not a big deal,
there are only three or four in a chord chart. But I fear fixed bar
widths may turn out to be more important than I thought. 
It is all to do with how people's eyes scan the lines as they read. When
reading text I have often noticed that the brain picks up a word that is
actually on the next line and inserts it into the current sentence when
it is semantically plausible. It tells us that we are actually
processing more than a linear set of symbols when we read. I think the
alignment of the bars on successive lines may reduce a sense of clutter
that would impair the fluency of those experienced in reading from these
charts.
(BTW, sorry for the late response, this reply got lost ...)
Richard



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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 12:20 +0100, Richard Shann wrote:
 The remaining outstanding difficulty is controlling the measure width
 -
 ideally all the bar lines would align vertically down the screen (the
 chord symbols would be made smaller if they didn't fit).
 I have set
 
 \set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4)
 
 which helps make the measures more even in width, but not entirely. 

I have now discovered that there are several properties of ChordName
which trigger equal measure widths, for example

\override ChordName.extra-spacing-width=#'(+inf.0 . -inf.0)

in conjunction with 

\set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4) 

gives equally spaced measures, even if the chord symbols are too large
(they collide in that case).
Strangely, this

\override ChordName.Y-extent=##f

also triggers equal-width measures. Is using any of these effects
reliable, or am I just trading on some vagaries of the coding?

Richard




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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 19:17 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
 Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
 
  I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
  Charts such as the one attached here.
 
 You may wish to take a look at the playtab program.
 
 http://johan.vromans.org/software/sw_playtab.html
 

Thanks for this - I see that the alignment of bars down the page is
achieved. I have seen Open Office used to get this sort of look, but
with more control (*) over the size and shape of the symbols (important
for displaying on tiny - smartphone - screens).

What LilyPond ( Denemo) can bring to the party is transposition,
playback, adding (non-printing) drum tracks, using the same music for a
lead sheet and a wealth of other stuff - dynamics, repeat bars etc.

But it does seem that this alignment of bars down the page is quite
important for those who play from these chord charts, so I would like to
hear if this is a lost cause, or something that could be hacked in
LilyPond's scheme.

Richard

(*) well, more control only for those familiar with Open Office...


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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Johan Vromans]

Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:

 You may wish to take a look at the playtab program.

 What LilyPond ( Denemo) can bring to the party is transposition,
 playback, adding (non-printing) drum tracks, using the same music for a
 lead sheet and a wealth of other stuff - dynamics, repeat bars etc.

Playtab can handle transposition, and (the development version) is
capable of producing playback data for ChordBot and iRealB. These tools
do a much better job than I intend to do.

In general, when you have a LilyPond score with chords, you can cut/past
the chords into playtab and it should require just a couple of minor
tweaks to get it going. That was the whole idea behing implementing
LilyPond chords syntax.

Anyway, playtab suits me and several others. Feel free to join the 
party :).

-- Johan

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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

On Sat, 2014-08-30 at 15:09 +0200, Johan Vromans wrote:
 Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:
 
  You may wish to take a look at the playtab program.
 
  What LilyPond ( Denemo) can bring to the party is transposition,
  playback, adding (non-printing) drum tracks, using the same music for a
  lead sheet and a wealth of other stuff - dynamics, repeat bars etc.
 
 Playtab can handle transposition, and (the development version) is
 capable of producing playback data for ChordBot and iRealB. These tools
 do a much better job than I intend to do.
 
 In general, when you have a LilyPond score with chords, you can cut/past
 the chords into playtab and it should require just a couple of minor
 tweaks to get it going. That was the whole idea behing implementing
 LilyPond chords syntax.

That sounds great - though the output looks a bit sparse for a tiny
screen, but I guess people could work on that if they wanted to go with
playtab.
 
 Anyway, playtab suits me and several others. Feel free to join the 
 party :).

Well, it is not for me - I can't tell a 9sus4 from a dim7 - but I'll
certainly pass on the link to my correspondents.

Richard



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

Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
Charts such as the one attached here.
They differ from conventional music notation by being short, comprising
only Chord Symbols with one or two chord durations, and, ideally, a
fixed measure spacing, usually four to a line.
Various tweaks have been applied in this example to suit very small
displays.
The remaining outstanding difficulty is controlling the measure width -
ideally all the bar lines would align vertically down the screen (the
chord symbols would be made smaller if they didn't fit).
I have set

\set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4)

which helps make the measures more even in width, but not entirely.

Can anyone suggest something that would essentially turn off the fancy
spacing algorithms that are running? Or perhaps point me to some scheme
code governing the spacing which I could tweak?

Richard




%% LilyPond file generated by Denemo version 1.1.9

%%http://www.gnu.org/software/denemo/

\version 2.18.0

DenemoGlobalTranspose = #(define-music-function (parser location arg)(ly:music?) #{\transpose c c #arg #})
AutoBarline = {}
AutoEndMovementBarline = \bar |.

\defineBarLine |-RepeatEndHorned #'(:|]  )

\defineBarLine :|]-RepeatEnd #'(:|] | )

\defineBarLine [|:-RepeatStart #'(|| [|: )

\defineBarLine ||-Double #'(|| | )

\defineBarLine |-Single #'(| | )

\defineBarLine | #'(| | |)
\markup \teeny v 2BarRepeatEndHorned = \bar |-RepeatEndHorned
BarRepeatEnd = \bar :|]-RepeatEnd
BarRepeatStart = \bar [|:-RepeatStart
BarDouble = \bar ||-Double
BarSingle = \bar |-Single
% The music follows

MvmntIVoiceI = {
 c' e' gis' bes'1 -\markup \super +7 f' aes' ees''1 -\markup \super {{\bold  –} 7} c'' e'' gis''1 -\markup \super \bold + c'' ees'' g''1 -\markup \super \bold –%5
 ees' d''1  -\markup {\hspace #0.5 \super \override #'(thickness . 0.6) \scale #'(0.6 . 0.8)\triangle ##f }}



\addQuote Unnamed Mvmnt 1 \MvmntIVoiceI


MvmntIIVoiceI = {
 \BarSingle   \once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'self-alignment-X = #center \mark \markup {\line\large{\bold \box \fontsize #6 A }
} f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 f' aes' ees'' bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 ees' c'' d' fis' ais' c''\AutoBarline
 ees' c'' c'' e'' gis''\AutoBarline
%5
 f' ees''1\AutoBarline
 f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 ees' d''1\AutoBarline
 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta ))
 ^\markup\scale #'(1.5 . 1.5)\column{\line\large{1.}
} f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes'' 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta #f))
 \BarRepeatEndHorned  \break \skip 1 \bar %10
 \skip 1 \bar  \skip 1\AutoBarline
 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta ))
 ^\markup\scale #'(1.5 . 1.5)\column{\line\large{2.}
} bes' aes''2 ees' des'' \BarDouble  \break 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta #f))
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'self-alignment-X = #center \mark \markup {\line\large{\bold \box \fontsize #6 B}
} aes' g''1\AutoBarline
 c'' bes''\AutoBarline
%15
 f' aes' ees''\AutoBarline
 a' c'' ees'' ges'' \break c'' ees'' g''2 aes' ges''\AutoBarline
 f' ees''1\AutoBarline
 bes' aes''2 bes' des'' fes'' aeses''\AutoBarline
%20
 bes' aes''1 \BarDouble  \break \newSpacingSection
\revert Score.SpacingSpanner.spacing-increment
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark #'self-alignment-X = #center \mark \markup {\line\large{\bold \box \fontsize #6 A2}
} f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 f' aes' ees'' bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 ees' c'' d' fis' ais' c''\AutoBarline
 ees' c'' c'' e'' gis''\AutoBarline
%25
 f' ees''1\AutoBarline
 g' bes' f''2 c'' bes''\AutoBarline
 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta ))
 f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 \once \override ChordName.extra-offset =#'(1 . -2)  \tweak  font-size #6 ees'  \tweak  font-size #6 c''4 \once \override ChordName.extra-offset =#'(1.5 . -2)  \tweak  font-size #6 bes' aes''4 \once \override ChordName.extra-offset =#'(2 . -2)  \tweak  font-size #6 bes' des'' aes''4 ^\markup\scale #'(1.5 . 1.5)\column{\line\large{back to \bold \box A}
} \tweak ChordName.extra-offset  #'(0.5 . -2)  \tweak  font-size #6 c'' bes''4 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta #f))
 \bar || \break \skip 1 \bar %30
 \skip 1 \bar  \skip 1\AutoBarline
 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta ))
 ^\markup\scale #'(1.5 . 1.5)\column{\line\large{last time}
} f' aes' ees''2 bes' aes''\AutoBarline
 ees' c''1\AutoBarline
 des' ces''2 ees' c'' 
\set Score.repeatCommands = #'((volta #f))
 \BarDouble }



\addQuote Unnamed Mvmnt 2 \MvmntIIVoiceI



%Default Score Layout
\header{DenemoLayoutName = Default Score Layout}

\header {
tagline = \markup {/home

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Jacques Menu]

Hello Richard,

\set Score.bars-per-line-engraver '(4))

JM

Am 29.08.2014 um 13:20:57 schrieb Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com:

 I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
 Charts such as the one attached here.
 They differ from conventional music notation by being short, comprising
 only Chord Symbols with one or two chord durations, and, ideally, a
 fixed measure spacing, usually four to a line.
 Various tweaks have been applied in this example to suit very small
 displays.
 The remaining outstanding difficulty is controlling the measure width -
 ideally all the bar lines would align vertically down the screen (the
 chord symbols would be made smaller if they didn't fit).
 I have set
 
 \set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4)
 
 which helps make the measures more even in width, but not entirely.
 
 Can anyone suggest something that would essentially turn off the fancy
 spacing algorithms that are running? Or perhaps point me to some scheme
 code governing the spacing which I could tweak?
 
 Richard
 
 
 
 AsTimeGoesByV2.lyAsTimeGoesBy.png___
 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: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 16:00 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
 Hello Richard,
 
 \set Score.bars-per-line-engraver '(4))
Thanks - 
I can't get that to compile, and indeed I can't track down
bars-per-line-engraver in the 2.18 docs, but I see it in snippets (see
below).
This anyway appears to address the question of avoiding manually
inserting the line breaks, which will be nice, but the question I am
asking is how to force equal bar lengths (in mm) across the line, so
that bar lines will align down the page.

This doesn't have to avoid collisions in conventional scores - it is
just for chord charts.

Below is the snippet I found defining a bars-per-line-engraver thing,
FWIW
Richard
#(define ((bars-per-line-engraver bar-list) context)
  (let* ((working-copy bar-list)
 (total (1+ (car working-copy
`((acknowledgers
   (paper-column-interface
. ,(lambda (engraver grob source-engraver)
 (let ((internal-bar (ly:context-property context
'internalBarNumber)))
   (if (and (pair? working-copy)
(= (remainder internal-bar total) 0)
(eq? #t (ly:grob-property grob 'non-musical)))
   (begin
 (set! (ly:grob-property grob
'line-break-permission) 'force)
 (if (null? (cdr working-copy))
 (set! working-copy bar-list)
 (begin
   (set! working-copy (cdr working-copy
   (set! total (+ total (car
working-copy



 
 JM
 
 Am 29.08.2014 um 13:20:57 schrieb Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com:
 
  I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
  Charts such as the one attached here.
  They differ from conventional music notation by being short, comprising
  only Chord Symbols with one or two chord durations, and, ideally, a
  fixed measure spacing, usually four to a line.
  Various tweaks have been applied in this example to suit very small
  displays.
  The remaining outstanding difficulty is controlling the measure width -
  ideally all the bar lines would align vertically down the screen (the
  chord symbols would be made smaller if they didn't fit).
  I have set
  
  \set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4)
  
  which helps make the measures more even in width, but not entirely.
  
  Can anyone suggest something that would essentially turn off the fancy
  spacing algorithms that are running? Or perhaps point me to some scheme
  code governing the spacing which I could tweak?
  
  Richard
  
  
  
  AsTimeGoesByV2.lyAsTimeGoesBy.png___
  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: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Richard Shann]

I see that my question has been asked before:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-06/msg00127.html

in the more challenging environment where the notes are also being
typeset.
That was four years ago, and no answer to the equal-measure-width
question was given.
I would be happy to hack some scheme code to force a constant measure
width, at least for this simple case where there are just a few chord
symbols per bar and the user is prepared to make the symbols small
enough to fit the bars.
But I would very much appreciate someone pointing me to the relevant
area of code, if it sounds feasible...

Richard



On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 15:36 +0100, Richard Shann wrote:
 On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 16:00 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
  Hello Richard,
  
  \set Score.bars-per-line-engraver '(4))
 Thanks - 
 I can't get that to compile, and indeed I can't track down
 bars-per-line-engraver in the 2.18 docs, but I see it in snippets (see
 below).
 This anyway appears to address the question of avoiding manually
 inserting the line breaks, which will be nice, but the question I am
 asking is how to force equal bar lengths (in mm) across the line, so
 that bar lines will align down the page.
 
 This doesn't have to avoid collisions in conventional scores - it is
 just for chord charts.
 
 Below is the snippet I found defining a bars-per-line-engraver thing,
 FWIW
 Richard
 #(define ((bars-per-line-engraver bar-list) context)
   (let* ((working-copy bar-list)
  (total (1+ (car working-copy
 `((acknowledgers
(paper-column-interface
 . ,(lambda (engraver grob source-engraver)
  (let ((internal-bar (ly:context-property context
 'internalBarNumber)))
(if (and (pair? working-copy)
 (= (remainder internal-bar total) 0)
 (eq? #t (ly:grob-property grob 'non-musical)))
(begin
  (set! (ly:grob-property grob
 'line-break-permission) 'force)
  (if (null? (cdr working-copy))
  (set! working-copy bar-list)
  (begin
(set! working-copy (cdr working-copy
(set! total (+ total (car
 working-copy
 
 
 
  
  JM
  
  Am 29.08.2014 um 13:20:57 schrieb Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com:
  
   I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
   Charts such as the one attached here.
   They differ from conventional music notation by being short, comprising
   only Chord Symbols with one or two chord durations, and, ideally, a
   fixed measure spacing, usually four to a line.
   Various tweaks have been applied in this example to suit very small
   displays.
   The remaining outstanding difficulty is controlling the measure width -
   ideally all the bar lines would align vertically down the screen (the
   chord symbols would be made smaller if they didn't fit).
   I have set
   
   \set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1/4)
   
   which helps make the measures more even in width, but not entirely.
   
   Can anyone suggest something that would essentially turn off the fancy
   spacing algorithms that are running? Or perhaps point me to some scheme
   code governing the spacing which I could tweak?
   
   Richard
   
   
   
   AsTimeGoesByV2.lyAsTimeGoesBy.png___
   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



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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[Johan Vromans]

Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com writes:

 I have been developing LilyPond code to enable the generation of Chord
 Charts such as the one attached here.

You may wish to take a look at the playtab program.

http://johan.vromans.org/software/sw_playtab.html

-- Johan

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

Re: Fixed measure width for chord charts.

[David Nalesnik]

Richard,


On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Richard Shann rich...@rshann.plus.com
wrote:

 On Fri, 2014-08-29 at 16:00 +0200, Jacques Menu wrote:
  Hello Richard,
 
  \set Score.bars-per-line-engraver '(4))
 Thanks -
 I can't get that to compile, and indeed I can't track down
 bars-per-line-engraver in the 2.18 docs, but I see it in snippets (see
 below).


 http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=838

You set the bars per line as part of the \consist; you can't use \set.

\layout {
\context {
  \Score
  \consists #(bars-per-line-engraver '(4))
}
  }

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

Fixed number of Systems on page

[Urs Liska]

Hi all,

is it possible to enforce a specific number of systems on a specific page?
For example to say: I want a given music (e.g. between two manual page 
breaks) on that page, but I also want to have it on 5 systems?


Or similarly asked: Please distribute the following 50 measures on 16 
staves.


It that's currently not possible (which I assume) is there a reason 
against it, or a reason why it is complicated to implement?


Urs

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

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Hi Urs,

Am 03.04.2014 11:54, schrieb Urs Liska:
 is it possible to enforce a specific number of systems on a specific page?
 For example to say: I want a given music (e.g. between two manual page
 breaks) on that page, but I also want to have it on 5 systems?
with lilypond anything should be possible with a little bit of coding ;)

 Or similarly asked: Please distribute the following 50 measures on 16
 staves.
 It that's currently not possible (which I assume) is there a reason
 against it, or a reason why it is complicated to implement?
It is not easy ...
You have the paper-variables for system-count (and for page-count).
When you combine that with forced pagebreaks, you might get close to
that request. *But IIUC* the page-variable will not change while
iterating the music. When the layout process is started, all iteration
is already done.

--snip-- % silly example just to show the rules
\version 2.18.0
\include editorial-tools/edition-engraver/definitions.ily

\paper {
  systems-per-page = #5
}
\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\consists \editionEngraver forced.pages
  }
}

\addEdition pages
\editionMod pages 10 0/1 forced.pages.Score.A \pageBreak
\editionMod pages 25 0/1 forced.pages.Score.A \pageBreak

\new Staff \with {
  \consists \editionEngraver forced.pages
} { \repeat unfold 50 \relative c'' { bes b c cis } }
--snip--

Lets think a bit more about it ...

Best, Jan-Peter



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

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[Simon Bailey]

Hi Urs,


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:

 is it possible to enforce a specific number of systems on a specific page?
 For example to say: I want a given music (e.g. between two manual page
 breaks) on that page, but I also want to have it on 5 systems?

 Or similarly asked: Please distribute the following 50 measures on 16
 staves.

 It that's currently not possible (which I assume) is there a reason
 against it, or a reason why it is complicated to implement?


I had a similar question a month or so back. And was given this answer:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-01/msg01207.html

I tried it out yesterday, using the following approach:

- removed all manual breaks
- compiled the piece normally without using this engraver.
- judging from the generated output, started counting bars and layouting
number of systems on each page (once the engraver runs out of instructions,
it carries on with the default layout)

i my case, this was done as the last step in layouting -- i was lucky, i
didn't have to fine-tune any of my previous tweaks as i hardly changed the
line breaks. it's probably not the best way to do things, but it works for
me. ideally you would get all the music entered, then finalise the page
layout, then fine-tune the output.

hope this helps,
sb

-- 
Do not meddle in the affairs of trombonists, for they are subtle and quick
to anger.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[Phil Burfitt]

- Original Message - 
From: Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org

To: lilypond-user lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 10:54 AM
Subject: Fixed number of Systems on page



Hi all,

is it possible to enforce a specific number of systems on a specific page?
For example to say: I want a given music (e.g. between two manual page 
breaks) on that page, but I also want to have it on 5 systems?


Or similarly asked: Please distribute the following 50 measures on 16 
staves.


It that's currently not possible (which I assume) is there a reason 
against it, or a reason why it is complicated to implement?


Urs

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




Hi Urs,

A combination of \paper variables page-count and system-count, together with 
explicit staff and system positioning might get you what you want.


http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/explicit-staff-and-system-positioning

Phil.


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

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[David Nalesnik]

Hi,


On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Simon Bailey si...@bailey.at wrote:

 Hi Urs,


 On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Urs Liska u...@openlilylib.org wrote:

 is it possible to enforce a specific number of systems on a specific page?
 For example to say: I want a given music (e.g. between two manual page
 breaks) on that page, but I also want to have it on 5 systems?

 Or similarly asked: Please distribute the following 50 measures on 16
 staves.

 It that's currently not possible (which I assume) is there a reason
 against it, or a reason why it is complicated to implement?


 I had a similar question a month or so back. And was given this answer:

 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2014-01/msg01207.html

 I tried it out yesterday, using the following approach:

 - removed all manual breaks
 - compiled the piece normally without using this engraver.
 - judging from the generated output, started counting bars and layouting
 number of systems on each page (once the engraver runs out of instructions,
 it carries on with the default layout)

 i my case, this was done as the last step in layouting -- i was lucky, i
 didn't have to fine-tune any of my previous tweaks as i hardly changed the
 line breaks. it's probably not the best way to do things, but it works for
 me. ideally you would get all the music entered, then finalise the page
 layout, then fine-tune the output.

 hope this helps,
 sb


I actually wrote another engraver which handles measures per line/systems
per page.  It looks like development found its way into a private thread,
so I'm enclosing the result here.

Hopefully the example in the file should give an idea of its usage, but let
me know if you need more information.

There may be a problem with manually setting the bar number, so I'll have
to work through this some.

Anyway, hopefully this gets you started!

--David
\version 2.17.8

#(define (expand-repetitions arg)
;; 4*5 -- 4 4 4 4 4
;; (at any level of nesting)
  (fold-right
(lambda (elem prev)
(cond ((pair? elem)
   (cons (expand-repetitions elem) prev))
  ((symbol? elem)
   (let* ((str (symbol-string elem))
  (split (string-split str #\*))
  (split (map (lambda (elem) (string-number elem)) split)))
 (append (make-list (cadr split) (car split))
 prev)))
  (else (cons elem prev
'()
arg))

#(define ((bars-per-line-systems-per-page-engraver lst) ctx)
  (let* ((bars-and-systems? (any pair? lst))
 (working-copy (expand-repetitions lst))
 (systems-per-page
   (if bars-and-systems?
   (car working-copy)
   #f))
 (last-measure-seen (ly:context-property ctx 'currentBarNumber))
 (last-measure-seen (if (null? last-measure-seen)
0
(1- last-measure-seen)))
 (total
   (if systems-per-page
   (+ (car systems-per-page) last-measure-seen 1)
   (+ (car working-copy) last-measure-seen 1
  `((stop-translation-timestep
  . ,(lambda (trans)
  (let ((internal-bar (ly:context-property ctx 'internalBarNumber))
(current-col (ly:context-property ctx 'currentCommandColumn)))
;; we are only interested in the first NonMusicalPaperColumn of
;; each measure
(if (and ( internal-bar last-measure-seen)
 (= (remainder internal-bar total) 0)
 (pair? working-copy))
(begin
  (set! (ly:grob-property current-col 'line-break-permission) 'force)
  (set! last-measure-seen internal-bar)
  (if bars-and-systems?
  (begin
(if (null? (cdr systems-per-page))
(begin
  (set! (ly:grob-property current-col 'page-break-permission) 'force)
  (if (pair? (cdr working-copy))
  (begin
(set! working-copy (cdr working-copy))
(set! systems-per-page (car working-copy)))
  (set! working-copy '(
(set! systems-per-page (cdr systems-per-page)))
(set! total (+ total (car systems-per-page
  (begin
(if (null? (cdr working-copy))
(set! working-copy lst)
(begin
  (set! working-copy (cdr working-copy
  (set! total (+ total (car working-copy)

%% EXAMPLE %

\relative c' {
  \repeat unfold 50 {
\acciaccatura b8 c4 c c c

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[Simon Bailey]

Hi,

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM, David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.comwrote:

 I actually wrote another engraver which handles measures per line/systems
 per page.  It looks like development found its way into a private thread,
 so I'm enclosing the result here.

 Hopefully the example in the file should give an idea of its usage, but
 let me know if you need more information.

 There may be a problem with manually setting the bar number, so I'll have
 to work through this some.

 Anyway, hopefully this gets you started!


 The version from the previous link worked perfectly for me yesterday, but
i've just swapped out my includes for this new version and the results are
exactly the same. :) Thanks!

regards,
sb


-- 
Do not meddle in the affairs of trombonists, for they are subtle and quick
to anger.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Fixed number of Systems on page

[Jan-Peter Voigt]

Great!!!

Am 03.04.2014 15:03, schrieb David Nalesnik:
 I actually wrote another engraver which handles measures per
 line/systems per page.  It looks like development found its way into a
 private thread, so I'm enclosing the result here.
 
 Hopefully the example in the file should give an idea of its usage, but
 let me know if you need more information.
 
 There may be a problem with manually setting the bar number, so I'll
 have to work through this some.
 
 Anyway, hopefully this gets you started!
 
 --David


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

notes fixed alignment for rhytmic notation

[Carlo Vanoni]

Hi everyone!

I need to write some rhytmic exercises for my students. I would like to align 
the notes in the various lines not for the best fit output, but aligning the 
notes duration.
In each line, a given note duration uses a fixed amount of space, resulting in 
a notes alignment that give a good visual idea of where (or better, when) a 
note must be played inside the measure

Harder to explain than to get it... Here is an example:
http://davidaldridge.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/elementsv1-p281.jpg
Besides the first line, due to the tempo info, this example uses the explained 
alignment.

Searching throgh the user manual I've found only info about mark/text alignment.

Here is an example where I don't have he alignment

\version 2.18.0

\relative c'
{
    \time 4/4
    c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | \break
    c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | \break
    c4 c4 c4 c8 c8 | c16 c8 c16 c4 r8 c8 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 | c4 c4 c4 c4 |
}

2nd bar of 2nd and 3rd lines are misaligned: c16 c8 c16 in 3rd line use more 
more space than the c4 in the 2nd line; the next notes are misaligned, and 
the measure is wider.
Note: I'm not interested in 1st-2nd line alignment; the misalignment is due to 
the indentation and the time.

Thanks for the support!
MIX___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: notes fixed alignment for rhytmic notation

[David Nalesnik]

Hi Carlo,


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:39 AM, Carlo Vanoni vanoniiscrizi...@yahoo.itwrote:

 Hi everyone!

 I need to write some rhytmic exercises for my students. I would like to
 align the notes in the various lines not for the best fit output, but
 aligning the notes duration.
 In each line, a given note duration uses a fixed amount of space,
 resulting in a notes alignment that give a good visual idea of where (or
 better, when) a note must be played inside the measure


It sounds like you're looking for proportional notation.  See
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/proportional-notation
for documentation of the various spacing options.

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

Re: Fixed (absolute) line spacing in markup column

[Eluze]

Dominicus wrote
 One can set an absolute fontsize for markup, but I don't know of a way to
 set a fixed pointsize (or \mm dimension) for spacing between lines in a
 markup column.
 This causes the distance between stacked lines of text in a markup column
 to scale relative to the staff size .
 I wish to prevent this behaviour.  Help!

in
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/space-between-title-and-music-td57361.html#a57367
I found this function: 

#(define-markup-command (mm-feed layout props amount) (number?) 
(let ((o-s (ly:output-def-lookup layout 'output-scale))) 
  (ly:make-stencil  '(0 . 0) (cons 0 (abs (/ amount o-s)) 

#(define-markup-command (put-mm layout props dir amount arg) 
(ly:dir? number? markup?) (interpret-markup layout props 
  (markup #:put-adjacent Y dir arg #:mm-feed amount)))

Eluze



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Fixed-absolute-line-spacing-in-markup-column-tp157881p157883.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Fixed (absolute) line spacing in markup column

[Javier Ruiz-Alma]

I need to define a multi-line tagline for our Mutopia Project scores.  The 
scores can have user-defined values for global staff size, but the tagline 
needs to be a fixed-fontsize markup block that doesn't scale with staff size.


One can set an absolute fontsize for markup, but I don't know of a way to set a 
fixed pointsize (or \mm dimension) for spacing between lines in a markup column.
This causes the distance between stacked lines of text in a markup column to 
scale relative to the staff size .
I wish to prevent this behaviour.  Help!


Snippet:

\version 2.16.1
#(set-global-staff-size 40)
\markup{
  \column{
     \abs-fontsize #15
     %need a command to set absolute line spacing to a fixed number of points 
or \mm between lines
     {line1 line2}
  }
}

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

fixed it!

[Molly Preston]

Thank you for all your help! I actually got it so that there aren't any
errors popping up right now. Lyric bar check errors were happening due to
the fact that you can't put a bar check unless the lyric is on the
downbeat. I don't know why that is. But that seems to be how it works.

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

fixed vertical space

[Werner LEMBERG]

I have

  \markup { ...}

  \score { ... }

(at the top level) and I want some vertical space between the \markup
and the \score which isn't stretchable.  How can I achieve that?


Werner

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

Re: fixed vertical space

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org

To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: fixed vertical space




I have

 \markup { ...}

 \score { ... }

(at the top level) and I want some vertical space between the \markup
and the \score which isn't stretchable.  How can I achieve that?


   Werner


\markup { \vspace #10 } ?



--
Phil Holmes

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

Re: fixed vertical space

[Werner LEMBERG]

 I have

  \markup { ...}
  \score { ... }

 (at the top level) and I want some vertical space between the
 \markup and the \score which isn't stretchable.  How can I achieve
 that?
 
 \markup { \vspace #10 } ?

This would insert *at least* a 10-units vertical space (since lilypond
fills up a page vertically if you have `ragged-bottom = ##f').
However, I want a fixed space between \markup and \score that doesn't
get stretched.


Werner

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

Re: fixed vertical space

[Robin Bannister]

Werner LEMBERG wrote: 
However, I want a fixed space between \markup and \score 
that doesn't get stretched.


How about mm-feed?  
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-04/msg00057.html


Cheers, 
Robin



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

Re: fixed vertical space

[Werner LEMBERG]

 However, I want a fixed space between \markup and \score that
 doesn't get stretched.
 
 How about mm-feed?
 http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-04/msg00057.html

Nope:

  #(define-markup-command (mm-feed layout props amount) (number?)
   (let ((o-s (ly:output-def-lookup layout 'output-scale)))
 (ly:make-stencil  '(0 . 0) (cons 0 (abs (/ amount o-s))

  \paper { ragged-last-bottom = ##f }

  \markup { markup1 }

  \markup { markup2 }
  \markup \mm-feed #10 % -- here I want a fixed space of, say, 10mm
  \score { c'' }

  \markup { markup3 }
  \score { c'' }

  \markup { markup4 }

But maybe I'm using your command incorrectly...


 Werner
inline: v.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: fixed vertical space

[Robin Bannister]

Werner LEMBERG wrote: 

 \markup \mm-feed #10 % -- here I want a fixed space of, say, 10mm


Ok, maybe I get it; 
mm-feed gives you a fixed space (which you could use) 
but is followed by flexible space (which you don't want). 

Would it be acceptable to clobber the flexible space by adding 
markup-system-spacing = #'() 
to \paper in this example? 



Cheers, 
Robinattachment: clobbered.png___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: fixed vertical space

[Werner LEMBERG]

 Doesn't something like this do it?
 
   markup-system-spacing = [...]

Yes, as Robin has suggested, too.  However, this is a global setting,
while I would like to have something local.


Werner

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

Re: fixed vertical space

[Nick Payne]

On 20/09/13 19:13, Phil Holmes wrote:

- Original Message - From: Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 10:06 AM
Subject: fixed vertical space




I have

 \markup { ...}

 \score { ... }

(at the top level) and I want some vertical space between the \markup
and the \score which isn't stretchable.  How can I achieve that?


   Werner


\markup { \vspace #10 } ?


Doesn't something like this do it?

\version 2.17.25

\paper {
  markup-system-spacing =
#'((minimum-distance . 6)
   (padding . 0)
   (stretchability . 0))
}

\markup { Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the party }

\relative f'' {
\repeat unfold 256 { c4 }
}

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

verifying \chordmode neglects point-and-click (fixed)

[Graham Percival]

Some kind of error with chordmode was fixed.  Can somebody check
this works?
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1022

- Graham

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

Re: verifying \chordmode neglects point-and-click (fixed)

[Phil Holmes]

- Original Message - 
From: Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca

To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2012 4:01 PM
Subject: verifying \chordmode neglects point-and-click (fixed)



Some kind of error with chordmode was fixed.  Can somebody check
this works?
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1022

- Graham

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



Don't forget to include the bugs newsgroup - not all bug squad members watch 
user.


--
Phil Holmes



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

Re: Vertical spacing for fixed y-offset of systems *calculated from top staff line*?

[Keith OHara]

Dear Trevor, and others writing with fixed staff-spacing,

Trevor Bača trevorbaca at gmail.com writes:

 \paper { system-system-spacing =
    #'((basic-distance . 50)
   (minimum-distance . 0)
   (padding . -10)
   (stretchability . 0))
[...]

I use the (complete) formatting from your post, with music that lasts a few 
pages.  For a simple page filling example, I used
  reps = 50  \new PianoStaff 
  \new Staff \repeat unfold \reps {g1 c'''1}
  \new Staff \repeat unfold \reps {c'''1 g1} 
and I saw
 warning: cannot fit music on page: overflow is 3.300242
 warning: compressing music to fit

I think the compressing music to fit is the reason for 

 4. staff-staff-spacing minimum-distance [] needed 
 to be greater than [] 25.
 [...] values smaller than that were allowing the two staves to
 collapse considerably closer to each other in a 'nonlinear' way 

I was confused by (minimum-distance . 0), because this seems to request
that systems be moved very close when needed.   I think the page-breaker is 
similarly confused, and tried to put more systems on the page than would fit 
with 50-staff-space separation between them.


Does this work better for you (maybe with smaller numbers) ?

\paper {
  system-system-spacing =
  #'((minimum-distance . 30)
 (basic-distance . 30)
 (stretchability . 0))
  top-system-spacing =
  #'((minimum-distance . 15)
 (basic-distance . 15)
 (padding . -10)
 (stretchability . 0))
}
\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\override VerticalAxisGroup #'staff-staff-spacing =
#'((minimum-distance . 20)
   (basic-distance . 20)
   (stretchability . 0))
  }
}
This has the advantage of actually giving me the 20 staff-spaces between 
staves.  You could leave out the lines with (basic-distance . x) for your case 
of completely-fixed spacing.

My motivation for asking is that I want to allow spacings to compress down to 
minimum-distance, even when stretchability=0, for things like piano pedal lines 
where I don't want the line to stretch away, but can accept it coming closer to 
fit more music on one page.
However, I don't write nearly as much music as you so I don't want to mess up 
anything you depend on.


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

Re: Vertical spacing for fixed y-offset of systems *calculated from top staff line*?

[Joe Neeman]

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Trevor Bača trevorb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi,

 I'm looking to vertically lay out systems in a very rigid and regular way.
 (This is the method I documented a while back in 4.4.2 'Explicit staff and
 system positioning' using the Y-offset and alignment-distances attributes of
 line-break-system-details.) The challenge is that this method produces
 different visual results than it used to now that the new vertical spacing
 code has been added into the system. Examples are the easiest way to show
 the difference.


 Here's an example of explicit system positioning:

 %%% EX 1: EXPLICIT SYSTEM POSITIONING W/ JUMPING STAVES %%%

 \version 2.13.61

 \paper {
evenHeaderMarkup = \markup \fill-line {   }
indent = #0
oddHeaderMarkup = \markup \fill-line {   }
top-margin = 20\mm
 }

 \new Staff {

%%% PAGE 1 

\overrideProperty #Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 0))
c'1 \pageBreak

\overrideProperty #Score.NonMusicalPaperColumn
#'line-break-system-details #'((Y-offset . 0))
c1

 }

 %%% END EX 1 %%%

 Rendering example 1 shows two pages of music with one system per page. The
 thing to notice is that staves jump around on the page and appear at two
 different vertical positions on the two pages. Lily's visual output in cases
 like this used to be different.


Yes, this seems to be something that changed unintentionally with the new
spacing code. I have a patch that gets back the old behaviour, but it has
the disadvantage that it introduces millions of false positives to the
automatic regression checker (the signature-based one, probably not the
pixel-based one).

FWIW, I would consider Carl's solution with top-system-spacing to be
recommended for most uses, because it allows you to fix the top system on
each page, but still have lilypond do everything else automatically. But if
you really want to fix the position of every system and you're happy to do
manual breaks and everything, then line-break-system-details 'Y-offset is
still the way to go.

Cheers,
Joe
From 5d673418525d929fe6d520124d84932edf9e97e0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Joe Neeman joenee...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 09:06:27 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Make the system refpoint the refpoint of its first spaceable
 staff.

Apparently this used to be the default, but the new spacing code
changed the system refpoint to be the top of the tallest grob
in the system.  If the system refpoint is the refpoint of its
first spaceable staff, it is easier to do manual page layouts.
---
 lily/page-layout-problem.cc |7 ++-
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lily/page-layout-problem.cc b/lily/page-layout-problem.cc
index fa4bd9c..507b7c4 100644
--- a/lily/page-layout-problem.cc
+++ b/lily/page-layout-problem.cc
@@ -488,11 +488,8 @@ Page_layout_problem::find_system_offsets ()
 	  // that it is consistent with the usual up/down sign conventions in
 	  // Lilypond. Then this would be less confusing.
 
-	  // These two positions are relative to the page (with positive numbers being
-	  // down).
-	  Real first_staff_position = solution_[spring_idx];
-	  Real first_staff_min_translation = elements_[i].min_offsets.size () ? elements_[i].min_offsets[0] : 0;
-	  Real system_position = first_staff_position + first_staff_min_translation;
+	  // These is relative to the page (ie. positive numbers are down).
+	  Real system_position = solution_[spring_idx];
 
 	  // Position the staves within this system.
 	  Real translation = 0;
-- 
1.7.5.2

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