Original Message
> From: "Carl Sorensen"
> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:23 PM
> To: "Keith OHara" , "bug-lilypond@gnu.org"
> Subject: Re: horizontal spacing regression
>
> Here's a workaround. I haven't done a regtest, so I don't know if this
is
> something we want to
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:22:53 -0800, Carl Sorensen wrote:
\override Accidental #'extra-spacing-height = #'(-0.5 . 0.5)
That works nicely, on both the original music example we looked at on -user,
and my new favorite example:
\paper { ragged-right = ##t }
\version "2.13.43"
{ \clef bass
% \o
On 1/13/11 5:34 PM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:09:50 -0800, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure this qualifies as a regression, because I'm not sure that we
>> *intended* the behavior that is observed in 2.12.3.
>>
> I wasn't sure it would either, but I should have brough
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011 16:09:50 -0800, Carl Sorensen wrote:
I'm not sure this qualifies as a regression, because I'm not sure that we
*intended* the behavior that is observed in 2.12.3.
I wasn't sure it would either, but I should have brought it up as a bug so we
can collectively decide.
If t
On 1/13/11 4:56 PM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> Dear Bug Squad
>This is the only unreported regression I know about.
> It change since 2.12.3, and although I did not get a huge response over on
> -user, we agree it got worse.
> I believe this tiny example captures what we did not like in the real
On 1/13/11 4:56 PM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> Dear Bug Squad
>This is the only unreported regression I know about.
> It change since 2.12.3, and although I did not get a huge response over on
> -user, we agree it got worse.
> I believe this tiny example captures what we did not like in the real
Dear Bug Squad
This is the only unreported regression I know about.
It change since 2.12.3, and although I did not get a huge response over on
-user, we agree it got worse.
I believe this tiny example captures what we did not like in the real music
examples from that thread.
% Note spacing s
On 1/13/11 2:16 PM, "Janek Warchoł"
wrote:
>
> The distances are not equal. Optical corrections are made there.
>
OK, you got me interested so I spent some time I didn't have on this. I
must be a LilyPond addict.
It appears that the optical spacing *is* being added during note-spacing.cc.
I as
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 14:34:43 -0800, Graham Percival
wrote:
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Keith OHara wrote:
P.S. I would be easily capable of this patch once I figure out git:
I hope that you have read
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/contributor/using-lily_002dgit
Dear B
Hi all,
2011/1/13 Graham Percival
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:41:22AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > As far as I can see, there is not much more to do than just omit the
> > > warning for parallel music when the output is sensible. The extra
> > > angles for being allowed (and required) t
Xavier Scheuer gmail.com> writes:
> > On 8 January 2011 13:33, Daniel Meyer djmeyer.de> wrote:
> >> % If you write a note with an accidental
> >> % and use the same note in the next measure,
> >> % the accidental should be reprinted.
> >> % When using \partial, it is not reprinted.
>
> \partial
2011/1/13 Carl Sorensen :
> On 1/13/11 8:14 AM, "Janek Warchoł"
> wrote:
>> I'd say that instead of adding some space between notes that should be
>> put farther apart, some space can be substracted from between notes
>> that should be closer, and the result is the same.
>> There is plenty of spac
Comment #3 on issue 1472 by reinhold.kainhofer: Collision between MMR and
key signature
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1472
To be correct: This is not a collision of the key signature with the MMR,
but it rather seems that a MMR after the key signature takes no horizonta
Updates:
Labels: Patch
Comment #2 on issue 1472 by percival.music.ca: Collision between MMR and
key signature
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1472
There is a patch for this bug:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.bugs/22404/focus=22466
___
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:10:58PM +, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
>
> Comment #3 on issue 1245 by pkx1...@hotmail.com: festival song output is
> uncompletely undocumented
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1245
>
> Here are the latest instructions for 'singing computer' -
Comment #3 on issue 1245 by pkx1...@hotmail.com: festival song output is
uncompletely undocumented
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1245
Here are the latest instructions for 'singing computer' - this is a
separate bit of software that requires Festival + LilyPond - that I
Comment #1 on issue 1472 by percival.music.ca: Collision between MMR and
key signature
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1472
For clarity, this is a regression since 2.12.3, which produces this good
output.
Attachments:
foo.png 18.5 KB
_
Status: Accepted
Owner:
Labels: Type-Collision Priority-Critical Regression
New issue 1472 by PhilEHolmes: Collision between MMR and key signature
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1472
2.13.46 - the following code:
\version "2.13.46"
{
\compressFullBarRests
\key c \maj
Original Message -
From: "Graham Percival"
In your judgement as Bug Meister, is does 2.13.46 have a
regression against 2.12.3 or 2.10.33 ? If so -- or merely if you
suspect that there is such a regression -- then add a critical
issue, with a link to this discussion.
If some programm
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:52:12PM -, Phil Holmes wrote:
> I'd already forwarded it to bugs, and there's been quite a bit of
> discussion ending with a patch from Keith, so I thought it was
> fixed. Just checked and it's not - you may like to check for
> subjects containing MMR to see where yo
"Graham Percival" wrote in message
news:AANLkTimobdwXUK3q_NgEepL9yubPkNLHC-m5aE=an...@mail.gmail.com...
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jan Warchoł
wrote:
Looks like your message was somehow overlooked; i don't see this issue in
the tracker. I'm forwarding this to the bug reports mailing list
On 1/13/11 8:14 AM, "Janek Warchoł"
wrote:
> W dniu 13 stycznia 2011 16:02 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
> napisał:
>> On 1/13/11 7:24 AM, "Janek Warchoł"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> looks like this mail was somehow overlooked. May i ask you to answer
>>> the question posed by James - is the beha
W dniu 13 stycznia 2011 16:02 użytkownik Carl Sorensen
napisał:
> On 1/13/11 7:24 AM, "Janek Warchoł"
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> looks like this mail was somehow overlooked. May i ask you to answer
>> the question posed by James - is the behaviour described below
>> intended?
>
> I assume that the r
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:47 PM
>
>> I've decided that this is not a restriction, but a bug. Here is the
>> reason: when merge-differently-headed is set and three or more notes
>> are
>> in the note column, heads _are_ getting merged but get ass
On 1/13/11 7:24 AM, "Janek Warchoł"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> looks like this mail was somehow overlooked. May i ask you to answer
> the question posed by James - is the behaviour described below
> intended?
I assume that the reason it hasn't been answered is because nobody knows.
But as notes are sque
Looks like this mail should be sent to bug report mailing list, i'm
forwarding it.
2011/1/5 Nick Payne :
> I have a score which with default settings fits very loosely on three pages.
> By adding page-count = 2 to the paper block it fits without any problem on
> two pages but the log then contains
2011/1/13 Graham Percival :
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jan Warchoł
> wrote:
>> Looks like your message was somehow overlooked; i don't see this issue in
>> the tracker. I'm forwarding this to the bug reports mailing list.
>
> I wouldn't say it was "overlooked". He sent it to the lilypond-
Hi,
looks like this mail was somehow overlooked. May i ask you to answer
the question posed by James - is the behaviour described below
intended?
2011/1/4 James Bailey
>
> On Dec 30, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > didn't find it in the tracker so i report:
> > optical
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Jan Warchoł
wrote:
> Looks like your message was somehow overlooked; i don't see this issue in
> the tracker. I'm forwarding this to the bug reports mailing list.
I wouldn't say it was "overlooked". He sent it to the lilypond-user
mailing list; the Bug Squad is n
David Kastrup wrote Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:47 PM
I've decided that this is not a restriction, but a bug. Here is
the
reason: when merge-differently-headed is set and three or more
notes are
in the note column, heads _are_ getting merged but get assigned
the
wrong notehead.
No, the
Updates:
Status: Fixed
Labels: fixed_2_13_47
Comment #7 on issue 1419 by percival.music.ca: makelsr.py 's convert-ly
should use -d
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1419
Done.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lily
Looks like your message was somehow overlooked; i don't see this issue in
the tracker. I'm forwarding this to the bug reports mailing list.
cheers,
Janek
-- Forwarded message --
From: Paul Scott
Date: 2011/1/6
Subject: collision between MMR and key signature
To: lilypond-u...@gnu
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:23 PM
>
>
>> "Trevor Daniels" writes:
>>
>>> LilyPond currently has a documented restriction that
>>> merging cannot take place if there are three or more
>>> notes in the same note column. Here there are three,
>>> so
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 09:54:20AM +, John Wickerson wrote:
> Your dates on the lilypond website's frontpage are wrong --
> replace Jan 2010 with Jan 2011! :)
Thanks! We'll need to run grand-replace for all the other parts
of our source, as well. I forgot about that; I'll do it later
today.
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:41:22AM +0100, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > As far as I can see, there is not much more to do than just omit the
> > warning for parallel music when the output is sensible. The extra
> > angles for being allowed (and required) to put the durations inside
> > seem like a rea
> I'm not top posting.
Your dates on the lilypond website's frontpage are wrong --
replace Jan 2010 with Jan 2011! :)
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>> As far as I can see, there is not much more to do than just omit the
>> warning for parallel music when the output is sensible. The extra
>> angles for being allowed (and required) to put the durations inside
>> seem like a reasonably cheap price to pay.
>
> There is
>> If at all, the syntax would be e.g.
>>
>>
>>
>> and the chord's duration would be the maximum of the single note's
>> durations.
>>
>> This syntax extension looks quite natural to me.
>
> Not to me. Chord syntax explicitly creates a combined object with a
> common duration, and the duration
On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 09:39:23 -0800, Neil Puttock wrote:
On 10 January 2011 20:29, Keith OHara wrote:
It looks like all other items that needed it got an extra-spacing-height.
I'm unclear on the zero-height-skyline concept, though,
and worry that typically end-of-line items like KeyCancellati
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> [About chords which contain notes of different durations, sometimes
> seen in string music.]
>
>> If the notes are all attached to the same voice why not allowing:
>>
>> << g,4 d'4 b'4>> ?
>
> If at all, the syntax would be e.g.
>
>
>
> and the chord's duration would
40 matches
Mail list logo
