Re: that acciaccatura issue
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes: > Thomas Morley, > > Thank you for your extensive and detailed reply. > The time and knowledge that you spent on my inquiry indicates a real, > and appreciated, desire to assist. Yes and no. You'll find that most of the work in that reply was _not_ invested in assisting with the problem at _hand_ but rather using the problem at hand for demonstrating how to construct a minimal example that would have made it quite easier for others to help. Note that _every_ person wanting to help you needs to perform those steps that you did not perform yourself before posting your question. So even while you may be less efficient at performing those steps, doing them yourself will reduce the total amount of work invested into your problem. > Several times in the past I have sought aid from this list. Every > "trouble" was quickly and clearly resolved. > Never have I experienced such a kerfuffle as the present. > I am not an intimate of the workings of Lilypond. I do not know what > code is necessary. I do not know what context, or how much, is > necessary for the resolution of a "problem." Well, that's why you are supposed to keep removing things while the problem persists. Now I will readily admit that your example was not humongous and quite boiled down. I've seen people post entire scores and ask about a problem. So you already provided something that was a good starting point for boiling down to an essential example. But when one doesn't grasp the problem at a glance, this boiling down still is necessary and it's usually mere grunt work. So why not do it right away yourself? The difference is then that you don't need to rely on somebody who says "I feel nice today and will put in half of an hour for this guy with a problem" but rather will have five people piping up "oh, I see what the problem is" trying to prove themselves. And since some psychological part of problem solving is showing how smart one is, instead of competing in solving the problem at all, they will try competing in providing a good explanation. And that, again, may be something you can benefit from. And sometimes there actually is still half an hour of problem or more even _after_ boiling down, so you increase your likelihood to get _any_ answer by doing that yourself. So view the "kerfuffle" you complain about (which may partly result from somebody not having a good day) as an intiation rite expressing "ok, we have seen you come back time and again so it looks like you are here to stay, so let's give you a quick rundown on how people will keep enjoying your company best, for a long fruitful relation." And at some time you might be the one giving the rundown yourself, being still better equipped to empathize with newcomers than the guys spinning out the same yarn for the umpteenth time. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
2016-08-22 0:20 GMT+02:00 Mark Stephen Mrotek :
> I do not know the intricacies of Lilypond and
> therefore am unable to distinguish what code can be eliminated to create a
> "minimal."
Remembering the time I started with LilyPond, things went wrong pretty
often. I had no clue why and ofcourse I was hardly aware what I was
doing ...
To solve the problem first step is always to isolate it.
I.e. copy and paste the code into a test file and try to comment
elements, lines or blocks, if the problem persists delete what you've
commented. Only thing: don't introduce other problems. If this happens
don't delete it.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/troubleshooting
Yes, it's try and error, but you don't need _any_ knowledge about
LilyPond for this task.
Btw, back to the small example from my previous post:
\new Staff <<
\time 4/4
\key bes \major
\new Voice { \voiceOne \acciaccatura r8 r4 }
\new Voice { \voiceTwo \grace s8 r4 }
>>
At some point while creating a minimal example you may get:
<<
\time 4/4
\key bes \major
\new Voice { s1 }
\new Voice { s1 }
>>
Now all voices (those you explicitely create _and_ the others) are not
longer forced to be in one Staff.
(Though I'm somewhat surprised only three not four staves are
displayed. Obviously LilyPond accumulates some loosing ends per
default.)
Anyway, if you now apply \displayMusic you get the internal
scheme-representation of whats going on:
\displayMusic
<<
c'1
\new Voice { s1 }
\time 4/4
\new Voice { s1 }
\key bes \major
>>
==>
(make-music
'SimultaneousMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'TimeSignatureMusic
'beat-structure
'()
'denominator
4
'numerator
4)
(make-music
'KeyChangeEvent
'pitch-alist
(list (cons 6 -1/2)
(cons 0 0)
(cons 1 0)
(cons 2 -1/2)
(cons 3 0)
(cons 4 0)
(cons 5 0))
'tonic
(ly:make-pitch -1 6 -1/2))
(make-music
'ContextSpeccedMusic
'create-new
#t
'property-operations
'()
'context-type
'Voice
'element
(make-music
'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'SkipEvent
'duration
(ly:make-duration 0 0 1)
(make-music
'ContextSpeccedMusic
'create-new
#t
'property-operations
'()
'context-type
'Voice
'element
(make-music
'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'SkipEvent
'duration
(ly:make-duration 0 0 1)))
Ofcourse this would be far too large, if not applied to a minimal ;)
But have a look what follows after
elements
(list
Yes, it's a still a lot stuff, but do me the favor ;)
You see four entries: settings for time-sig, key-sig and two Voices.
But you want only two voices, thus put time/key-sig into one of the
voices.
More, the time-sig is (per default) applied to the whole score, but
not the key-sig.
This is a feature, ofcourse. How to deal with it depends on the use-case...
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
Thomas Morley writes:
> At some point while creating a minimal example you may get:
>
> <<
> \time 4/4
> \key bes \major
> \new Voice { s1 }
> \new Voice { s1 }
>>>
>
> Now all voices (those you explicitely create _and_ the others) are not
> longer forced to be in one Staff.
> (Though I'm somewhat surprised only three not four staves are
> displayed. Obviously LilyPond accumulates some loosing ends per
> default.)
"loose ends".
commit fb79cea8ec10ebc40b96a05bf7f643e47fd93ddd
Author: David Kastrup
Date: Sun Mar 15 12:15:18 2015 +0100
Issue 4324: Don't create Bottom to announce TimeSignatureEvent
As a fallout of issue 4138, << \time 3/4 \new Staff c2. >> created a
spurious Staff only containing a time signature. This change avoids the
creation of a Bottom context just for accommodating \time. As a result,
{ \tweak color #red \time 3/4 c2. }
will no longer show a change in color since no Staff context exists at
the time \time is executed and consequently the tweak does not apply
anywhere. You have to use \time in existing Staff contexts to have
either \tweak and point&click have an effect (and get an error locator
when something with typesetting the signature goes wrong). Outside of
such contexts, \time just changes properties of the Timing context.
So (after this change, or before the mentioned issue 4138) the gist is
that \time changes properties in the Timing context (which by default is
aliased to Score, thus not causing a Staff to be created) while \key
changes properties at Staff level which necessarily requires a Staff to
be created (unless already in existence).
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Compiling against guile-2.*
> > In a nutshell, they aren't. Once Guile 2.0.12 becomes available in > Ubuntu _or_ works reasonably well non-installed, there may be some more > attempt to get this to work, until the next Guile flaws not sanely > addressable in LilyPond are discovered and one has to wait for the next > Guile release. Guile takes about 1-2 years for a 2.0.x release these > days, and Ubuntu takes 1/4 to 3/4 years to pick up a new release. > > I guess that there will likely be still 2-3 such iterations, so it's > more likely that the game will get restarted on Guile-2.2 at some point > before it plays out on Guile-2.0. > > -- > David Kastrup > Huh. Well, that's odd. I just tried compiling Lily again, and this time it (lilypond-2.19.47, as it reports itself) worked (against guile-2.0.12). Haven't tried compiling any files yet, but whatever issue I had last week is no longer preventing compilation (or has been resolved). Cheers ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Keep alive together - call for use cases
Hi Mark, Do your files require a version later than they claim (2.19.45)? I’m running 2.19.46, and I get >warning: cannot find property type-check for `keep-alive-group' > (backend-type?). perhaps a typing error? Thanks, Kieren. On Aug 21, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Mark Knoop wrote: > I've just submitted an additional patch which I think addresses the > uses raised by Mats, Kieren and Abraham. See attached ly and pdf files. > > Comments, particularly on usability, appreciated. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Potential improvements to the homepage?
On Mon 22 Aug 2016 at 08:38:38 (+0200), David Kastrup wrote: > Andrew Yoon writes: > > > There are certainly many options to explore, many of them quite simple. At > > any rate, over the next few days I'll take a crack at something and see > > what people think. Should future discussions about this belong in the dev > > mailing list? Apologies if this is the wrong place... > > Well, yes and no. The developer list is the right place to discuss > implementation and extensions of LilyPond and "how to do $x". This may > lead to getting feedback from the user list, of course. > > When we are talking about what amounts to changes in the CSS for mere > appearances' sakes, the "how" question is pretty much already answered. > We are not really talking about any extension of functionality (yet?). > I'm not sure all developers read the user list, however. But I also am > not sure how many of those not reading the user list care about the > appearance of the web page, either. > > I haven't seen any proposals for _technical_ changes yet: those may well > see a veto from developers for technical reasons. As long as the main > topic is the question of style (rather than concrete frame works and > stuff), I don't see much potential for wasted work when an actual > proposal (which needs to go through the developer resources anyway) is > placed on the table only to get "oh, we can't do it in this way because > of $SERVER, $FRAMEWORK, $ACCESSIBILITY, $SECURITY, $WEBSTANDARDS". I, for one, am someone who depends on being able to magnify web pages (Ctrl +, inverse Ctrl -) to cope with their font sizes. I was a little surprised at lilypond.org's inability to scale up drastically (surprised because the font sizes are good enough for me when the third line of the introductory paragraph starts with "is free software"). Two more Ctrl + clicks and there's a collision; one more and the sidebar starts falling off the page. My desirables for home pages are plenty of logically grouped links, no moving images, and the avoidance of buttons that have to be dragged to make a selection (or which pop up a huge menu as you move the mouse over them). I think lilypond.org might be improved by making the "new features" (2.16→2.18) link more visible; partnering it with a "forthcoming features" (2.18→2.20) link because, let's face it, the community here mainly discusses and encourages the development version; and relegating the "thanks/brought to you by" section to an "About" link in the top bar. If space on that bar is too valuable, "About" could be added to the Introduction's second-row bar instead. Cheers, David. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Keep alive together - call for use cases
At 12:01 on 22 Aug 2016, Kieren MacMillan wrote: >Hi Mark, > >> Yes, sorry, they require a version built with the 3rd patchset here > >Ah… > >> that's why I also attached the pdfs, >> so you can see the results without compiling. > >I was hoping to try it out on my real-world choral example, so that I >could report back on its sufficiency and usability. I’ll see what I >can figure out without actually compiling the score. I'd be happy to try it on one of your scores if you send me the source. -- Mark Knoop ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
Thomas,
Ah yes, trial and error, it has been my means of leaning most everything. And
no less in learning Lilypond. Before submitting any request some time (and
frustration) was spend on consulting manual, adding/deleting, moving, and just
cussing at the screen (Frescobaldi provides immediate feedback).
Regarding isolation of the problem: if I were able to distill code down to the
two or three offending lines, I would possibly (though perhaps not probably) be
able to see/solve the problem. For the case at hand, I knew what the problem
was, and it had been discussed/solved on the list several times previous: the
placement of an acciaccatura at the very beginning of one of several voices
requires an identical (except for pitch "s") to be placed in the other voices.
The context used was a piano score for four explicit voices (for fugues)
provided by a member of the list. Somehow the two "clashed." Was it syntax?
General coding? Conflict of commands?" The context was a part of the "problem."
The two line "solution" does provide the desired "print out," yet in isolation.
When inserted into the entire score (Piano of two staves) it creates the same
multiple time/key signatures as my coding. This leads me to question the
benefit of the minimalist of examples. The two line solution also eliminates
the "Instrument Name" (I use it to denote the variation number) and change from
relative pitch coding to absolute pitch encoding. What precedes the "solution"
affects as well as is affect by the "solution."
The two lines have been used toe "rebuild" the template. Yet the acciaccatura
problem still exists! My solution: eliminate the acciaccatura and get on with
the rest of the score.
My sincere thanks to everyone who has refused to dismiss my inquiry as trivial.
All have demonstrated a desire to teach me the workings of Lilypond. Perhaps
this dialogue might lead to the consideration that not allsituations are
resolved with a single method.
Thank you again, and good day.
Martk
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morley [mailto:thomasmorle...@gmail.com] /
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:34 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: Simon Albrecht ; lilypond-user
Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue
2016-08-22 0:20 GMT+02:00 Mark Stephen Mrotek :
> I do not know the intricacies of Lilypond and therefore am unable to
> distinguish what code can be eliminated to create a "minimal."
Remembering the time I started with LilyPond, things went wrong pretty often. I
had no clue why and ofcourse I was hardly aware what I was doing ...
To solve the problem first step is always to isolate it.
I.e. copy and paste the code into a test file and try to comment elements,
lines or blocks, if the problem persists delete what you've commented. Only
thing: don't introduce other problems. If this happens don't delete it.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/troubleshooting
Yes, it's try and error, but you don't need _any_ knowledge about LilyPond for
this task.
Btw, back to the small example from my previous post:
\new Staff <<
\time 4/4
\key bes \major
\new Voice { \voiceOne \acciaccatura r8 r4 }
\new Voice { \voiceTwo \grace s8 r4 }
>>
At some point while creating a minimal example you may get:
<<
\time 4/4
\key bes \major
\new Voice { s1 }
\new Voice { s1 }
>>
Now all voices (those you explicitely create _and_ the others) are not longer
forced to be in one Staff.
(Though I'm somewhat surprised only three not four staves are displayed.
Obviously LilyPond accumulates some loosing ends per
default.)
Anyway, if you now apply \displayMusic you get the internal
scheme-representation of whats going on:
\displayMusic
<<
c'1
\new Voice { s1 }
\time 4/4
\new Voice { s1 }
\key bes \major
>>
==>
(make-music
'SimultaneousMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'TimeSignatureMusic
'beat-structure
'()
'denominator
4
'numerator
4)
(make-music
'KeyChangeEvent
'pitch-alist
(list (cons 6 -1/2)
(cons 0 0)
(cons 1 0)
(cons 2 -1/2)
(cons 3 0)
(cons 4 0)
(cons 5 0))
'tonic
(ly:make-pitch -1 6 -1/2))
(make-music
'ContextSpeccedMusic
'create-new
#t
'property-operations
'()
'context-type
'Voice
'element
(make-music
'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (make-music
'SkipEvent
'duration
(ly:make-duration 0 0 1)
(make-music
'ContextSpeccedMusic
'create-new
#t
'property-operations
'()
'context-type
'Voice
'element
(make-music
'SequentialMusic
'elements
Re: that acciaccatura issue
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> The two lines have been used toe "rebuild" the template. Yet the
> acciaccatura problem still exists! My solution: eliminate the
> acciaccatura and get on with the rest of the score.
In this case, the acciacatura has not even been a part of the problem,
so I am surprised that eliminating it would have helped. The problem
would, at least if I understand correctly, have been visible with
<<
\key bes\major
{ b1 }
{ g1 }
>>
just the same. The first replies did focus on the acciaccatura since
grace timing is one of the topics where this kind of problem appears
most often, and the example did contain acciaccature so that was an easy
mistake to make.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
David,
And it would have been "visible" if the file I attached had been viewed
rather than dismissed as not being "minimal." Reminds me Aesop fable of the
Fox and the Grapes.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 9:50 AM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: 'Thomas Morley' ; 'lilypond-user'
Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> The two lines have been used toe "rebuild" the template. Yet the
> acciaccatura problem still exists! My solution: eliminate the
> acciaccatura and get on with the rest of the score.
In this case, the acciacatura has not even been a part of the problem, so I
am surprised that eliminating it would have helped. The problem would, at
least if I understand correctly, have been visible with
<<
\key bes\major
{ b1 }
{ g1 }
>>
just the same. The first replies did focus on the acciaccatura since grace
timing is one of the topics where this kind of problem appears most often,
and the example did contain acciaccature so that was an easy mistake to
make.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Midi dynamics behaviour changed in latest git HEAD
On Sat, Aug 20, 2016 at 03:25:10PM +0300, Heikki Tauriainen wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 10:16 -0700, H. S. Teoh wrote: > > I've been using lilypond from git HEAD (mainly because lilypond in > > my distro is too old, still stuck at 2.18, and I need features and > > fixes in 2.19), and recently I noticed that midi dynamics in my > > piano scores aren't being rendered correctly anymore. Looking into > > the commit log, I saw this: > > > > Issue 4947: Link notes to dynamics in Dynamic_performer rather > > than Staff_performer. Dynamics in different voices are now > > independent. [...] > Would instantiating the Voice contexts explicitly in the MIDI \score, > > << > \new Staff \new Voice << \rightHandPart \dynamicsPart >> > \new Staff \new Voice << \leftHandPart \dynamicsPart >> > >> > > help? This is what I'd try first to ensure that \rightHandPart and > \dynamicsPart will end up in the same Voice (and not in any separate > implicit Voices which could get instantiated implicitly otherwise). [...] That did the trick. Thanks a lot!!! T -- Famous last words: I wonder what will happen if I do *this*... ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes: > David, > > And it would have been "visible" if the file I attached had been viewed > rather than dismissed as not being "minimal." Reminds me Aesop fable of the > Fox and the Grapes. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The symptoms of the grace synchronization problem are the same as that of putting isolated staff-creating elements into <<...>> so viewing the resulting PDF file would not have made the actual problem visible. And due to the non-minimality of the examples, ruling out the acciaccature as the cause of the problem did require an experienced user, namely Thomas Morley, to reduce the example to a minimal one in order to figure out the root cause and exclude the acciaccature as contributing to the problem. Yes, in hindsight it would have been possible to spot the problem even in the unabridged file since it clearly was present in there. Unfortunately, hindsight is not available before arriving at the correct conclusion. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
David, Thank you for your continued effort to instruct me in this matter. I am amazed/surprised/confounded on the amount of time and effort that has been expended on a justification of the "minimal" requirement what could have been spent on just viewing (via Frescobaldi not a PDF) the "errors" in my code. (Wow that was a run on!). You rightfully note that "an experienced user, namely Thomas Morely" was needed to comply to with the "minimal" requirement. How then can/should I be castigated for my inability? The generosity on the list members has benefited me many times in the past. I am grateful. Yet nothing in my positing is a demand on that generosity. May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not minimal enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the e-mail? Or a group of competent coders could take it upon themselves to attend to the particular needs of the beginner. Again, unequivocally, I appreciate the support provided by all members of the list. Mark -Original Message- From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 12:17 PM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek Cc: 'Thomas Morley' ; 'lilypond-user' Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue "Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes: > David, > > And it would have been "visible" if the file I attached had been > viewed rather than dismissed as not being "minimal." Reminds me Aesop > fable of the Fox and the Grapes. I don't understand what you are trying to say here. The symptoms of the grace synchronization problem are the same as that of putting isolated staff-creating elements into <<...>> so viewing the resulting PDF file would not have made the actual problem visible. And due to the non-minimality of the examples, ruling out the acciaccature as the cause of the problem did require an experienced user, namely Thomas Morley, to reduce the example to a minimal one in order to figure out the root cause and exclude the acciaccature as contributing to the problem. Yes, in hindsight it would have been possible to spot the problem even in the unabridged file since it clearly was present in there. Unfortunately, hindsight is not available before arriving at the correct conclusion. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
> I am amazed/surprised/confounded on the amount of time and effort > that has been expended on a justification of the "minimal" > requirement what could have been spent on just viewing (via > Frescobaldi not a PDF) the "errors" in my code. (Wow that was a run > on!). Mark, we try to *educate* you! I don't understand why you pretend being a novice. You are staying long enough on this mailing list that you actually should already know how to create a minimum example just by reading other e-mails. For your given example it might have been possible by experts to correctly deduce that the issue at hand was the time signature and not the grace note. But what about the next example? And the next after the next one? > How then can/should I be castigated for my inability? Sorry to say, but this sounds like a lame excuse for not trying yourself to reduce the input data. Leaving out a line here and there isn't rocket science! I have to do *exactly* the same to find out potential bugs and/or problems, and it costs me a non-trivial amount of time to do the reduction until I get a minimum (or small) example. > May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not > minimal enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the > e-mail? Or a group of competent coders could take it upon > themselves to attend to the particular needs of the beginner. Again: you do not longer count as a beginner, at least for me, so please do us a favour in reducing future examples as much as you can. In case you are stuck with a further reduction, people on this list will certainly assist you. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
Werner, Thank you for your input into this matter. Some comments amaze me: "pretending to be a novice" "you should already know" "sounds like a lame excuse" "it isn't rocket science" Even my parents were not so patronizing! Mark -Original Message- From: werner.lemb...@gmx.de [mailto:werner.lemb...@gmx.de] On Behalf Of Werner LEMBERG Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 1:37 PM To: carsonm...@ca.rr.com Cc: d...@gnu.org; thomasmorle...@gmail.com; lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue > I am amazed/surprised/confounded on the amount of time and effort that > has been expended on a justification of the "minimal" > requirement what could have been spent on just viewing (via > Frescobaldi not a PDF) the "errors" in my code. (Wow that was a run > on!). Mark, we try to *educate* you! I don't understand why you pretend being a novice. You are staying long enough on this mailing list that you actually should already know how to create a minimum example just by reading other e-mails. For your given example it might have been possible by experts to correctly deduce that the issue at hand was the time signature and not the grace note. But what about the next example? And the next after the next one? > How then can/should I be castigated for my inability? Sorry to say, but this sounds like a lame excuse for not trying yourself to reduce the input data. Leaving out a line here and there isn't rocket science! I have to do *exactly* the same to find out potential bugs and/or problems, and it costs me a non-trivial amount of time to do the reduction until I get a minimum (or small) example. > May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not > minimal enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the > e-mail? Or a group of competent coders could take it upon themselves > to attend to the particular needs of the beginner. Again: you do not longer count as a beginner, at least for me, so please do us a favour in reducing future examples as much as you can. In case you are stuck with a further reduction, people on this list will certainly assist you. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
Mark, On 8/22/16 1:49 PM, "Mark Stephen Mrotek" wrote: >May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not minimal >enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the e-mail? Are you really asking us to ignore your emails if you don't provide tiny examples? I think that will not have the result you would like. The "group of experienced coders" you refer to were precisely the ones who helped with your solution and asked you to learn to make tiny examples in the future. Nevertheless, they answered your question. If you wish to keep getting help from them, it would be wise for you to try to learn how to create tiny examples, rather than suggesting that they not ask you to do so. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
Carl, The concept of "minimal" is rather subjective. I really do not know how to quantify it. The only current indication is some nebulous reference to number of lines. As I mentioned in another response, I do not know what is "essential" in a snippet. How do I know that the two line "solution" conflicts with something that was eliminated? (I still have not got my head around the hierarchy of Lilypond's file structure.) I have on many occasions, some prior to my posting, done a trial/error, add/subtract with my scores. Be assured my posting is a last resort. I am not asking anyone to ignore what I provide, just as I do not require anyone to respond. Whoever reads my post has the choice to respond or not. Again, I am grateful for all the assistance I have gotten from the more knowledgeable. Mark -Original Message- From: Carl Sorensen [mailto:c_soren...@byu.edu] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:17 PM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek ; 'David Kastrup' Cc: 'Thomas Morley' ; 'lilypond-user' Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue Mark, On 8/22/16 1:49 PM, "Mark Stephen Mrotek" wrote: >May I suggest that if my, or any other beginners, snippet is not >minimal enough for any reader, that the reader just close out the e-mail? Are you really asking us to ignore your emails if you don't provide tiny examples? I think that will not have the result you would like. The "group of experienced coders" you refer to were precisely the ones who helped with your solution and asked you to learn to make tiny examples in the future. Nevertheless, they answered your question. If you wish to keep getting help from them, it would be wise for you to try to learn how to create tiny examples, rather than suggesting that they not ask you to do so. Thanks, Carl ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
> Some comments amaze me: > "pretending to be a novice" > "you should already know" > "sounds like a lame excuse" > "it isn't rocket science" > > Even my parents were not so patronizing! Well, English is not my mother tongue, and I can't reply with such elegant and polite phrases you are using, sorry. My reply was not meant as patronization; I really try to understand where your `inability' lies. What hinders you *in trying* to create a minimum example? Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
2016-08-22 18:38 GMT+02:00 Mark Stephen Mrotek :
> The two line "solution" does provide the desired "print out," yet in
> isolation. When inserted into the entire score (Piano of two staves) it
> creates the same multiple time/key signatures as my coding. This leads me to
> question the benefit of the minimalist of examples. The two line solution
> also eliminates the "Instrument Name" (I use it to denote the variation
> number) and change from relative pitch coding to absolute pitch encoding.
> What precedes the "solution" affects as well as is affect by the "solution."
>
> The two lines have been used toe "rebuild" the template. Yet the acciaccatura
> problem still exists! My solution: eliminate the acciaccatura and get on with
> the rest of the score.
>> But you want only two voices, thus put time/key-sig into one of the voices.
Hi Mark,
let's disregard minmial examples for the moment.
I don't understand your problem applying the repeatedly mentioned fix.
Anyway, below your initial code with most minimal changes to fix the
problem, although formating and indenting and other stuff there is
suboptimal.
\version "2.18.2"
\new PianoStaff <<
\set PianoStaff.instrumentName = #"Var. IX "
\new Staff = "upper" <<
\new Voice = "soprano"
{
\time 4/4
\key bes \major \voiceOne \relative c'' {
\acciaccatura a8 bes4^. r \acciaccatura a8 bes4^. r |
}
}
\new Voice = "alto"
{ \voiceTwo \relative c'' {
\grace s8 r4 \stemDown r q |
}
}
>>
\new Staff = "lower"
{
\time 4/4
\key bes \major
\clef bass
\relative c {
\grace s8 r16 bes' (f d bes4) r16 bes' (f d bes4) }
}
>>
\layout {
}
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
On 22 August 2016 at 22:30, Mark Stephen Mrotek wrote: > The concept of "minimal" is rather subjective. It's not subjective; it is described here: http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html "an example from which nothing can be removed" Producing a minimal example doesn't require power user skills; it just requires a time commitment: keep trying to remove code until you can remove no more. Please read the page I linked. Your question was answered correctly in the very first reply, which you ignored. This thread has gone on long enough. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Some newbie questions...
Hi. I'm new to lilypond. I've read through much of the manual and I have a few questions outstanding. 1) Can lilypond do Nashville style chords? I mean, I'm sure it can, one way or another. What I'm really asking is if it is as simple as it is to do regular chords. Or what might be involved. (Pointers to documentation would be fine, thanks.) 2) Can Lilypond do fakebook style slashes? I found both of these here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chord_chart 3) How far has anyone gotten in midi -> lilypond translation? What I'm really looking for, actually, is a computer format that tracks time signatures, key signatures, chords, and section markers like "verse", "chorus", and "bridge". Lilypond seems to cover most of those so I'm considering using it as an intermediate format in a project. If anyone knows offhand of any other candidates, I'd appreciate pointers. Thanks in advance. --rich ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
Werner, Apology accepted. "Minimal" is a rather subjective term. Someone might regard 10 lines as too much, while another would willing work with 25 - or more. As I mentioned elsewhere, I do not know what sufficient, or necessary, i.e , what should be included and what can be deleted. I have done trial and error trouble shooting. Be assured that posting is a last resort. Another list member just sent to me a revision of my original snippet. He found the solution (one line) in the LSR. It had to do with the Instrument Name in Grand Staff. Now if I had omitted the Piano Staff to minimalize it, he might not have seen the connection. Be certain, I understand the need for brevity. In no way do I want to impinge upon the generosity of the members by requiring them to do unnecessary reading. What is stopping me from doing a minimal example - if that is defined merely by the number of lines - is that I lack the knowledge of what to include and what to omit. Thank you for Lilypond that has provided me with my piano scores. And thank you for your concern and attention to my progress. Mark -Original Message- From: werner.lemb...@gmx.de [mailto:werner.lemb...@gmx.de] On Behalf Of Werner LEMBERG Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 2:38 PM To: carsonm...@ca.rr.com Cc: d...@gnu.org; thomasmorle...@gmail.com; lilypond-user@gnu.org Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue > Some comments amaze me: > "pretending to be a novice" > "you should already know" > "sounds like a lame excuse" > "it isn't rocket science" > > Even my parents were not so patronizing!I Well, English is not my mother tongue, and I can't reply with such elegant and polite phrases you are using, sorry. My reply was not meant as patronization; I really try to understand where your `inability' lies. What hinders you *in trying* to create a minimum example? Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
RE: that acciaccatura issue
Kevin, Agreed. Amen Mark From: Kevin Barry [mailto:barr...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2016 3:12 PM To: Mark Stephen Mrotek Cc: Carl Sorensen ; David Kastrup ; Thomas Morley ; lilypond-user Subject: Re: that acciaccatura issue On 22 August 2016 at 22:30, Mark Stephen Mrotek mailto:carsonm...@ca.rr.com> > wrote: The concept of "minimal" is rather subjective. It's not subjective; it is described here: http://lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html "an example from which nothing can be removed" Producing a minimal example doesn't require power user skills; it just requires a time commitment: keep trying to remove code until you can remove no more. Please read the page I linked. Your question was answered correctly in the very first reply, which you ignored. This thread has gone on long enough. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
> What hinders you *in trying* to create a minimum example? > 1) Because it is veers toward being a ridiculous and arbitrary criteria. Speaking for myself, the example presented in this case was ***clearly*** small enough to debug. In my opinion, anyone saying otherwise either has a tangential axe to grind, or is not familiar enough with the language to be of help. No, you do not need a minimal example to solve a problem. Of course, the less code there is, the easier it should be. And I implore everyone to attempt to remove as much as seems reasonable when they submit a question. But to say things to the effect of "anyone helping you will have to start by creating a minimal example" is uber-rubbish. As long as you can immediately read the code and understand what it is attempting to do, then the example is sufficient. If I were to critique the code in this case, I would rather emphasize the awkward formatting: Line up your opening and closing braces, and use more consistent indentation, and more of it. It is far easier to read pages of well-formatted code than it is to comprehend a single convoluted expression. The emphasis should not be about minimalism, but rather about clarity. These are not the same quality; too much minimalism tends to obscure rather than clarify. 2) Because often much of the "non-minimal" code comes straight out of the docs. What kind of culture suggests that quoting code based on the docs is unfit for the basis of discussion on a user group? Because minimal examples fetishize the minutia of lilypond while obscuring the normal complexity present even in meager scores, such that it becomes needlessly complicated to apply the fix. I find it counterproductive to suggest that one should reduce an example to be smaller than what is *musically* necessary--in particular, in terms of the number of staves or voices in use. Hammering on people to conform to the minimal example causes people to have extra iterations on the list, and wastes everyone's bandwidth: * a reasonable (or possibly non-reasonable) example, * a follow-up (attempt at a) minimal example (it will never truly be minimal), * once a solution is suggested, a follow-up about how to solve the actual problem in the first place, since it was not clear how to apply the solution of the minimal example to the actual score, which has additional necessary complexity. Wouldn't it have been better to just provide a response to the first reasonable request? 3) My question to people complaining about the non-minimal-ness of this example is: Precisely which of these lines caused you to any extra time to debug? This was not a rambling several screens of undistilled raw source, but about two dozen lines, much of which is boilerplate. The things you took out to make it minimal: did you take these out just to prove a point, or did you ***honestly*** think that removing, for example, the names of staves and voices, key signature, clefs, or reducing a piano staff to a parallel music expression would actually identify or solve the problem with the duplicate time signature? I don't think that anyone in this discussion misunderstands *how* to create a truly minimal example. It's just that there is an open question about how relevant it is, especially beyond a certain point. Almost more importantly, there is also concern about the impact of how the attitude conveyed on this list about the requirements for minimal examples is a deterrent to cultivating the lilypond community. I understand the intention of the requests (although not demands) for minimal examples. But, as someone who has spent a lifetime developing and debugging code, I can assure you that these demands are strictly unnecessary, and come across as whiny and unprofessional. It should be possible to encourage people to improve their code, provide reasonable guidelines for submissions, and not come across as hostile or insulting. David Elaine Alt 415 . 341 .4954 "*Confusion is highly underrated*" ela...@flaminghakama.com self-immolation.info skype: flaming_hakama Producer ~ Composer ~ Instrumentalist -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
>> What hinders you *in trying* to create a minimum example? > > [...] > > I understand the intention of the requests (although not demands) > for minimal examples. But, as someone who has spent a lifetime > developing and debugging code, I can assure you that these demands > are strictly unnecessary, and come across as whiny and > unprofessional. > > It should be possible to encourage people to improve their code, > provide reasonable guidelines for submissions, and not come across > as hostile or insulting. You are missing the point. Nobody is criticizing him for not delivering the best minimal example (BTW, I fully agree with your idea of `clarity'). Thomas gave a wonderful explanation what lines can be easily removed (I dare to say that such an example would be worth to be added to the docs.). However, some of us got the impression – including me – that Mark is unwilling to do the reduction by himself *the next time*; instead he insisted on being not an advanced user, being `incapable' of doing that. If he had replied with a simple `will try', everything would be fine. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: that acciaccatura issue
2016-08-23 1:43 GMT+02:00 Mark Stephen Mrotek :
> Thomas,
>
> Thank you for your continued time and work.
>
> May I suggest that you take the code and display it through Frescobaldi? You
> shall see that the instrument name (Var. IX) does not appear.
>
> Mark
Hi Mark,
be ensured I always compile and check the pdf, before I post code to
the list, ofcourse I may overlook something.
But I check whether the problem in question is solved, not more. The
instrumentName was not the topic here, hence I didn't check for it.
May I suggest you ask explicitely for additional/related problems?
For the record:
\new PianoStaff \with { instrumentName = #"Var. IX "} << ...
will do it.
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
