In 2.10.10, Dynamic_performer and Span_dynamic_performer have been
replaced by New_dynamic_performer, but convert-ly does not make a change
or issue a warning. I've been using them in my midi block, and now I
will have to remember to manually change them.
Historically, I've had to use them in
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Hello,
I had another look at a lilypond print-out locally, and I think that
with the settings as is, it looks good, not in the least ugly.
*However*
I already discussed some of this with Jan, and we found that printer
artefacts might also be a factor: Jan's printer does
\version "2.11.10"
\score
{
\new Staff \relative c'''
{
\time 2/4
4\fermata
\grace {bes32[( a g fis g a bes c d c bes a g f e d c cis d a] c2)}
4\fermata
}
}
\layout
{
ragged-right = ##t
}
I played around with it a bit and I don't get a seg fault when the last c2 is
c
Marnen Laibow-Koser escreveu:
>> I'll keep it in mind when I'm fiddling with fonts
>> and blackness the next time. It might be a good idea to tune the bar
>> size down a bit (say: to 1.75), but I'll have to have a good look at
>> the output first.
>
> Is that 175% of the staff lines? If so, I s
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[...]
Yes, of course. So have I. It's just that Marnen asserts: off the
charts---which is not true---upon which conclusions seem to be drawn,
without further investigation.
What do you mean by "further investigation"? My conclusion was based on
careful examination o
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[...]
I just wanted to point out that if
you find thick barlines ugly, you will likely produce scans that have
light bar lines.
Just to make myself completely clear, I did not deliberately set out to
find scores with light barlines. I tried to get a representative
s
Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
[...]
Congratulations, you found some lightly printed editions.
Then that was the luck of the draw. I basically chose a few books more
or less at random, and added some editions whose aesthetics I like (such
as Henle). I will be trying to enlarge my sample and seei
> I'm not top posting.
%% Melisma rendering problem
\version "2.10.10" % on Linux 2.6.17 (Ubuntu 6.10)
\paper{ ragged-right=##t }
<<
\new Staff \relative { c2( d4) e4 }
\addlyrics { o __ mio }
\new Staff \relative {
%% with this accompaniment, melisma redering is incorrect
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> In the scan that Marnen produced, all bar lines are thinner than
>> Lily's, whereas in the two scans that I produced, Lily has the thinner
>> bar lines.
>
> FWIW, I also have goodlooking scores with lighter barlines; my Wiener Urtext
> of Brahms com
Jan Nieuwenhuizen escreveu:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion, but Marnen provided several
>> 1200 dpi scans to support his case.
>
> Yes, I acknowledged that Marnen found some lightweight prints. There
> are quite a lot of those aroun
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Perhaps you didn't follow the discussion, but Marnen provided several
> 1200 dpi scans to support his case.
Yes, I acknowledged that Marnen found some lightweight prints. There
are quite a lot of those around. I just wanted to point out that if
y
Panteck escreveu:
> Lilypond 2.11.10, Windows XP
>
> I didn't see this issue listed on the bug tracker site, so I thought I'd
> mention it here, in case no one else has seen it yet. With 2.11,
> accidentals (other than naturals) aren't being displayed. 2.10 displays
> them correctly.
>
> \versi
Issue 229: Figured bass accidentals not being displayed
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=229
New issue report by hanwenn:
Lilypond 2.11.10, Windows XP
I didn't see this issue listed on the bug tracker site, so I thought I'd
mention it here, in case no one else has seen it yet.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen escreveu:
> Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Uh, oh, you are exaggerating. What you describe is definitely not the
>> usual case for Bärenreiter. More than the current factor is
>> *definitely* too much. It deviates too much from most other
>
> Well, maybe I am
All these tricks with escaping, (double-) quoting and others unfortunately
do not work.
I have implement a small program (in Notepad++) which just copies the
ly-file to a file with a name python can handle, invokes convert-ly and
copies it back... but I'm not sure this is the "correct" place t
Werner LEMBERG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uh, oh, you are exaggerating. What you describe is definitely not the
> usual case for Bärenreiter. More than the current factor is
> *definitely* too much. It deviates too much from most other
Well, maybe I am. But I'm feeling quite uneasy about t
Perhaps the subject line should be
Issue nnn:
where is the subject description, in view of that "in
project lilypond" is redundant on the Bug-Lilypond list (or use
"Lilypond issue nnn: ", and that one then doesn't have to
read the mail to see what it is about.
Also,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> If we want to mimick Baerenreiter, my quick scan suggests we should
> tune it up from 1.9 to 2.2, but we'd have to compare good printouts
> with the original.
Uh, oh, you are exaggerating. What you describe is definitely not the
usual case for Bärenreiter. More than the current factor is
*def
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> before. If you want to see the images, they're at
>> http://doko.ebon-askavi.homedns.org:8080/1200 . While the numbers are
>> different, once again Lilypond's barlines are far thicker than any other
>> edition relative to the staff lines: all other
19 matches
Mail list logo
