Am Freitag, den 26.06.2020, 13:14 +0200 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser:
> Hi Urs,
>
> thanks for the improvements to my code! (I tend to stop thinking
> about it as soon as it works for my case, which always leaves
> lots
> of room for improvement.)
Seems to be the opposite of my approach. I'm always starting to think
in terms of reusability and "packages" right away - leading to working
code much later than would be good ;-)
>
>
>
> > The only remedy I can see right now would be to deal with
> > this in anafter-line-breaking stencil. From there we could iterate
> > over the wholesystem and check the maximum number of actually used
> > layers. The resultshould be cached so this process is done only
> > once per system.However, this won't always work because the context
> > may not have beenpushed sufficiently far down in situations like
> > the attached example.
> >
>
> This exceeds my current understanding of LilyPond coding, I'm
> afraid.
>
>
> > I've made a number of improvements to your code:
> > 1)reverseFigures creates a new music expression, from which you
> > laterretrieve the 'elements, which is unnecessary. (I renamed it to
> > parse-signature
> >
>
> Yes, thank you - I only wanted to "quickly re-use the existing
> code"
> without bothering about possible shortcuts.
>
> > 2)The figures do have their durations included, so we can
> > retrieve them*here* and reuse that information later when
> > generating theBassFigureEvent for the bass step markup.
> >
>
> Yes, that occurred to me later. However, I think there is still a
> problem (I was working on a similar problem when your code
> arrived):
>
>
>
> > 2a)Instead of \none I rewrote \scaledeg to accept either a
> > figuresignature or a duration. This gives a nice interface where
> > you can justspecify a duration for an empty figure.
> >
>
>
>
> <<
>
> \new Staff { \clef bass c2 d4 e4~ e f2 g4 }
>
> \figures {
>
> \scaledeg 1 <5 3>2
>
> \scaledeg 2 <6>4
>
> \scaledeg 3 2
>
> \scaledeg 4 <6 5> % Here the user would expect to get a
> duration of 2, but gets 4
>
> \scaledeg 4 <6 5>4
>
> }
>
> >>
>
>
>
> The parser does not seem to take notice of durations when they
> are used as function parameters.
Which is pretty plausible: How should LilyPond know what that duration
is used for and whether it should be considered for the next parsed
music or not. The function might as well convert that function argument
to a label and print it ...
> I do not know how to handle this
> - it comes down to the question: How to read/write the "current
> assumed duration" from the parser?
>
>
I would evade the issue by simply stating that one should *always* give
an explicit duration.
>
>
> As for lobbying with the music theory folks:
>
>
> They are going to ask for "raised"/"lowered" scale steps.
> (Using arrows, flat/sharp etc.) I even used relative
> solmization
> syllables for this in my teching instead of numbers... ("fa
> with
> a 642").
> The set of people interested in using this does not scale well
> with physical distance from the Freiburg theory department ;-
> ).
> It's not as widespread as one might be induced to believe
> from
> looking at their local practice... But maybe it's becoming
> more
> common over time. At least there's plenty of people with a
> Freiburg education getting teaching jobs elsewhere.
Well, my plan for it is to have a growing OLL module analysis.harmony
with submodules analysis.harmony.functional, analysis.harmony.förster,
analysis.harmony.roman-numerals etc. All of this should live within a
consistent user interface, and each module should be appropriately
configurable to accomodate the needs of different theorists.
Right now you can imagine that I have an incentive to please the
Freiburg incarnation of Förster's scale degree analysis (although I'd
in the same effort would provide the "pure" version too (which is of
course easier to achieve).The next GMTH congress will probably feature
a significant "digital" section or presentation, and I'm interested in
LilyPond taking a part in this.
Best
Urs
>
>
> Best
>
> Lukas
>
>
>
>
