sorry, group_by_measure()
www.martinrinconbotero.com On 20. Nov 2020, 19:22 +0100, Maximilian Marcoll <maximil...@marcoll.de>, wrote: > > > > Wouldn’t you just put each measure in a separate cell, so that a cell in > > > column 227 corresponds to measure 227? Deleting the corresponding column > > > would delete the measure, wouldn’t it?. Or do you have a different > > > structure for the Excel spreadsheet in mind? > > That’s exactly what I had in mind. > > (Sorry, I thought you meant the “make”-approach as an alternative rather than > an extension to this idea.) > > I’m experimenting with the spreadsheet-python-appoach atm and it looks quite > promising. > > M > > ______________________________ > http://www.marcoll.de > > subscribe to newsletter > > > On 20 Nov 2020, at 19:15, Martín Rincón Botero > > <martinrinconbot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Maximilian, > > > > after having failed at the beginning with abjad (it’s looking better now) I > > programmed some functions in Python to also be able to access instruments > > and measures. For measures, I made a function that simply looks for | and > > gives you back whatever is between | as a list. The Excel approach didn’t > > occur to me. Wouldn’t you just put each measure in a separate cell, so that > > a cell in column 227 corresponds to measure 227? Deleting the corresponding > > column would delete the measure, wouldn’t it?. Or do you have a different > > structure for the Excel spreadsheet in mind? > > > > Best regards, > > Martín. > > > > www.martinrinconbotero.com > > On 20. Nov 2020, 17:51 +0100, Maximilian Marcoll <maximil...@marcoll.de>, > > wrote: > > > Hi! > > > > > > thank you! > > > That looks awesome. But what do you do if you want to delete measure 227 > > > entirely? > > > > > > Cheers > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________ > > > http://www.marcoll.de > > > > > > subscribe to newsletter > > > > > > > On 20 Nov 2020, at 17:39, J Martin Rushton > > > > <martinrushto...@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Max, > > > > > > > > Caveat: I've not used this personally, my scores are not complex enough. > > > > > > > > One of the standard ways of handling this is to use make > > > > (https://www.gnu.org/software/make). Basically you write a makefile > > > > which tells make which files to compile and use that as the input to > > > > Lilypond. Make is clever though, and can select files on the basis of > > > > the last time they were changed, or if given parameters (for instance > > > > to generate part scores). > > > > > > > > See > > > > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.21/Documentation/usage/make-and-makefiles > > > > for Lily's take on this. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > On 20/11/2020 16:03, Maximilian Marcoll wrote: > > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > > Over last last couple of days I have been thinking about possible > > > > > ways to organize the engraving of a rather large piece (~45+ staves) > > > > > in Lilypond. > > > > > My problem is that the piece in question might undergo significant > > > > > changes in the future, so I need access to both instrument-wise and > > > > > measure-wise organisation simultaneously. > > > > > I am considering to enter the entire music in a huge excel > > > > > spreadsheet and to write a (python)-script to create one .ly file per > > > > > voice, > > > > > storing all the music in variables that can be used both in the full > > > > > score and the individual parts. > > > > > I’m having difficulties imagining that I am the first one to have > > > > > this idea, but couldn’t find anything online. > > > > > Any hints? > > > > > Thanks a lot! > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Max > > > > > ______________________________ > > > > > http://www.marcoll.de <http://www.marcoll.de> > > > > > subscribe to newsletter <http://eepurl.com/cKUzLX> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > J Martin Rushton MBCS > > > > > > > >
