-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com>
To: Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>, David Sumbler <da...@aeolia.co.uk>
CC: lilypond-user <lilypond-user@gnu.org>
Subject: {SPAM 01.0} Re: Weird parentheses
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 23:12:04 +0200
2018-09-24 9:04 GMT+02:00 Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>:
> Dear David,
>
> I might be wrong, but I think it is some font problem.
Most likely, I'd say.
Could you try:
\version "2.19.81"
#(define ((time-parenthesized-time up down upp1 downp1 upp2 downp2)
grob)
(grob-interpret-markup grob
(markup
#:override '(baseline-skip . 0)
#:override '(font-name . #f)
#:override '(font-encoding . fetaText)
#:number
(#:line (
(#:center-column (up down))
#:vcenter "("
(#:center-column (upp1 downp1))
#:lower 0.5 "+"
(#:center-column (upp2 downp2))
#:vcenter ")" )))))
\new Staff {
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'after-line-breaking =
#(lambda (grob)
(newline)
(pretty-print
(ly:stencil-expr
(ly:grob-property grob 'stencil))))
\override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil =
#(time-parenthesized-time "21" "8" "12" "8" "9" "8")
R1
}
The added code in `time-parenthesized-time` should make the markup
discard any font-name-setting you may have done before and forces it
to use 'fetaText.
The additional 'after-line-breaking-override displays the
stencil-expression in terminal.
It's a long list.
Of interest is for example the last section. Because font-name is #f
and font-encoding is 'fetaText a fall-back-font should be used, iiuc.
In my case it's "DejaVuSans":
[...]
(translate-stencil
(12.4918393700787 . 0.0)
(translate-stencil
(0.0 . -1.28037401574803)
(translate-stencil
(0.0 . 0.0)
(glyph-string
#<Font_metric (#f . 1.0)>
"DejaVuSans" <------------------------------
7.029296875
#f
'((1.57059212598425
(-0.512149606299213 . 3.07289763779528)
0.0
0.0
"parenright")))))))
What's displayed for you?
Cheers,
Harm
Firstly, thank you to all for the various responses to my original
post. I have been away from home until today, so this is the first
opportunity I have had to look at the problem further.
I am using Lilypond 2.19.82 on Ubuntu 18.04. I usually generate
Postscript files and display them as I work.
I now discover that if I generate PDF files instead they appear
correctly. Whether I compile under Ubuntu 16.04 or Ubuntu 18.04, the
resulting PDF files display correctly under both OS versions, whereas
the PS files display correctly under 16.04 but incorrectly under 18.04.
It doesn't seem to depend on the program used to display them: both
Evince (document viewer) and GIMP show the PS files incorrectly in
Ubuntu 18.04. They also print incorrectly.
I suppose that this must be due to an error in whatever underlying
software is interpreting the PS files, assuming that Evince and GIMP
use the same interpreter. I can't see that it can be an error in
Lilypond's compilation, because I get the same result compiling in both
versions of Ubuntu - yet only 18.04 displays and prints the results
incorrectly (no matter which Ubuntu version was used to compile).
In answer to Harm's final question, under both OS versions the font
shown is "Bitstream Vera Sans-Roman".
For now, the practical answer seems to be for me to check my work by
generating PDF files, rather than PostScript.
Of course, I'd be interested to receive any further observations and
suggestions.
David
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
