On Tue, 2015-01-20 at 16:29 +0100, Simon Albrecht wrote:
> Of course this is possible with any number of dots:
>
> \version "2.19"
>
> \relative {
> g'2.. 8
> 2... 16
> % or even
> 2.... 32
> 2...... 128
> }
>
> %%% end snip %%%
>
> I don't see why there should be any problem with shiftDurations there.
> But if I'm right, three dots multiply the duration by 15/8...
>
> HTH, Simon
Thanks Simon,
that's why the dots are weird (excuse the typo in my original
posting).
O... would indeed multiply the duration of O by 15/8, but
O:. is intended to multiply the duration of O by 9/4 ( i.e. O. + ..)
I'm transcribing a piece without access to the original white mensural
notation, and I'm coming to the conclusion (for this and other reasons)
that the old edition I'm working from is seriously loopy. Time to
reverse-engineer the original notation and take a different approach
methinks...
>
>
>
> Am 19-Jan-2015 23:59:28 +0100 schrieb lilyp...@tremagi.org.uk:
>
>
> Here's a little thing that has got me stumped.
>
> Is it possible to add three dots to a note glyph, thus:
>
>
> O:.
>
> to signify that the duration of the note is to be multiplied
> by 9/4 ?
> And can this be done in such a way
> (i) that the dots avoid clashing with staff lines, and
> (ii) that the note glyph changes correctly under
> \shiftDurations ? i.e. so that, say:
>
> c1\wierdDots % displays the
> note above,
>
> \shiftDurations #1 #0 { c1\wierdDots } % displays a
> 3-dotted minim, and
>
> \shiftDurations #-1 #0 { c1\wierdDots } % displays a
> 3-dotted breve.
>
> (For "simplicity" it is safe to assume that the second
> argument to \shiftDurations will always be zero).
>
> Grateful, as always, for any insight, even if on this occasion
> it is just expert advice to give up!
>
> -- Graham
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
