Dirk—
I don’t see any quick answer. I thought at first it may be that you weren’t
using Ap , so I took the slur labels out, added in the postscript slur request,
and voila, got yet a different incorrect result. I did also find as expected
that when I put the two voices in separate staves it works OK without the slur
labels.
This will take some time to sort out.
According to the comments in pmxab.for, in version 2.502 (April 2004) you were
the one who coded ”{” and “}” into PMX in the first place. :)
--Don
From: TeX-Music [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dirk Laurie
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 3:11 AM
To: Werner Icking Music Archive <[email protected]>
Subject: [Tex-music] Bracket alternatives for PMX s and t slurs
Have I missed something all these years?
The attached PMX file (also given below) compiles perfectly
and gives the first pdf attachment.
If I take out the A labels on the slurs, it gives the second pdf
attachment. As you can see, the sequence
(+4 f2d { e4 | e } )+3
which is supposed to be equivalent to
f2d s+4 e4 t | e t s+3
(if I code that explicitly, it works) behaves as if it is equivalent to
f2d s+4 e4 s | e s s+3
I haven't coded straight PMX without the aid of M-Tx for almost
20 years, so I don't know whether this has always been like that
or whether it crept in with a recent release.
~~~{.pmx}
1 1 4 4 0 0 3 2 0 5 20 0
t
./
% \\input <file:///\\input> pmxlyr\
% Bars 1-3
% \pmxlyr{all der ir--ren Qua--len los.}\
r4-6 r2-6 | r4-8 d2s e4 | ( c d2r )+0+1 d4 //
% \pmxlyr{all der ir--ren Qua-len los.}\
c25n a4 | (A+4 f2d {u e4 | e } )A+3 dn { d2 /
% Bars 4-5
d2 a | a r+0 //
d } c | d of rb /
~~~
-------------------------------
[email protected] mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
