Am 06.02.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
That sounds like the right way to go -- choose one format for the
messages.
OK, I'll think about how to do that.
I don't have much experience with this, but I'm excellent at using
trial and error, and happy to help with the testing.
I live in Brisbane, Australia, and do a lot of typesetting for a
conductor/composer who lives in Texas, USA. In the few short days I've
been using annotate it has already made my communications about
changes/corrections so much simpler and accurate.
That's great to hear. I also think it's a big step towards a _unified_
editing experience.
I'm quite appalled to see that there are (serious) people who explicitly
do _not_ want such a unified experience and seem to be horrified by the
idea of sharing (-> "giving away") responsibility :-(
Best
Urs
Craig
On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 6:54:03 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org
<mailto:u...@openlilylib.org>> wrote:
Hi Craig,
Am 06.02.2015 um 20:28 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
Hi Urs,
I worked out one of the problems.
Thank you for testing. This at least shows me where the problem is
- unfortunately an area I'm quite unfamiliar with ...
If there is only one lilyglyph in the message, surrounding it
with the "@"-s is fine.
This works:
message = "Is this @\lilyDynamics{p}@ necessary?"
If there are two lilyglyphs in the one annotate message the "@"-s
need to surround both.
This doesn't work:
message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{}@ go all the way to
the @\lilyDynamics{ff}@?"
This does work:
message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{} go all the way to the
\lilyDynamics{ff}@?"
OK, the problem seems to be that the regular expression that
matches "any text between two "@" characters" doesn't correctly
work when there are more than two such characters in the string. I
would have to sort out how that regular expression can match these
pairs independently.
Your solution just circumvents the problem but is actually not
acceptable (means: it is not acceptable that such a workaround is
necessary) because that means that *anything* between the two
LaTeX expressions will be also parsed literally, which may be OK
in cases but may also cause trouble in other cases, e.g.
message = "The @\crotchet is wrong (see #12), but the \quaver@
should be fine."
Here I'd want the # to be printed (referencing an issue in the
tracker), but as it is it would be printed literally instead of
the escaped version \#.
But this makes me think if that hybrid approach of possibly mixed
plain text and LaTeX code is really a good idea after all. Maybe
it would be better to decide about a format for messages and
simply treat the message consequently. That would mean there
should be a global option saying "message body is entered as
plaintext|latex|markdown|html" (as a project wide preference)
and/or there can be a local property in an annotation saying
message-format = "latex"
What do you think?
Urs
I still can't get italic text to work.
@\textit{cresc.}@
Craig
On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 10:34:48 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org
<mailto:u...@openlilylib.org>> wrote:
Am 06.02.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
Thanks Urs,
I had to try many different combinations, and don't ask me
why, but this is what I eventually found worked:
@\crescHairpin{}
and
\lilyDynamics{ff}@
Why one of them needs the "@" symbol at the start and the
other at the end I don't know.
I still can't get any variation of @\textit{dim.}@ to work.
Craig
Hm, well, that's definitely not what it should be like.
I'll try to have a look ASAP.
Urs
On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 8:37:56 AM Urs Liska
<u...@openlilylib.org <mailto:u...@openlilylib.org>> wrote:
Am 05.02.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
Hi all,
I'm having some trouble getting the Lilyglyphs to
display in Latex after exporting the annotate inp file.
Do you put the Lilyglyphs code into the annotate
message section?
e.g.
message = "This \decrescHairpin\ is very long. Would a
\textit{dim.} be better?"
or
message = "Should this \crescHairpin\ go all the way to
the \ff?"
Many thanks,
You can put arbitrary LaTeX code - and that includes
lilyglyphs - in a message section, but you have to
enclose everything in "@"-s.
Normally LaTeX special characters are escaped so that
they _print_ as desired, so
message = "Here you should use \crescHairpin"
would be translated to the following in the .inp file:
{Here you should use \textbackslash crescHairpin}
I think your above examples should be written as:
message = "This @\decrescHairpin@ is very long. Would a
@\textit{dim.}@ be better?"
message = "Should this @\crescHairpin@ go all the way to
the @\lilyDynamics{ff}@"
HTH
Urs
Craig
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org <mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org <mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
