Comment #22 on issue 34 by d...@gnu.org: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
One problem is that a context property setting in a different context has
to be processed at 0G-inf even if followed but not preceded by a grace note
in this context.
When
Comment #21 on issue 34 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
using -inf as normal grace timing basically shifts just one problem class
to another since some things need to happen before graces in other
contexts,
some after
Comment #20 on issue 34 by d...@gnu.org: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
I've had another musing. My proposal of using -inf as normal grace timing
basically shifts just one problem class to another since some things need
to happen before g
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes:
> Rational grace_part_.set_infinite (-1)
>
> should do. When make-moment is called omitting the grace part of the
> argument list, this should become the default.
>
Another interesting question, I think, is whether get_length() should
return 1/2 G-inf or 1/2 G0
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:10 AM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
>>
>> I think that is a promising approach. I looked through the code
>> thinking about this issue two days ago, and began to look for a way
>> to default-initialize the grace_part_ of a Moment to som
On Jul 21, 2011, at 11:10 AM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote:
>
> Comment #17 on issue 34 by reinhold...@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
>
> Comment by Keith O'Hara on bug-lilypond:
>
>> However, in my ey
Updates:
Labels: Patch-new
Comment #18 on issue 34 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34#c18
Investigations of what needs to be done for issue 34
http://codereview.appspot.com/5132042
On 27 Aug 2011, at 16:23, David Kastrup wrote:
Now, either of those breaks when combined with one of the following two:
c4 \clef "bass" \grace e8 c4 (clef at 1/4G-1/8 or 1/4G-inf)
or
c4 \grace e8 \clef "bass" c4 (clef at 1/4G-0 in both cases)
>>>
>>> What do you me
Hans Aberg writes:
> On 27 Aug 2011, at 08:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>> Now, either of those breaks when combined with one of the following two:
>>>
>>> c4 \clef "bass" \grace e8 c4 (clef at 1/4G-1/8 or 1/4G-inf)
>>> or
>>> c4 \grace e8 \clef "bass" c4 (clef at 1/4G-0 in both cases)
>>
On 27 Aug 2011, at 08:01, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Now, either of those breaks when combined with one of the following two:
>>
>> c4 \clef "bass" \grace e8 c4 (clef at 1/4G-1/8 or 1/4G-inf)
>> or
>> c4 \grace e8 \clef "bass" c4 (clef at 1/4G-0 in both cases)
>
> What do you mean with "bre
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> The problem is what is the default for the second value (the grace moment)?
> While processing a voice like
>c4 \clef "bass" c4
> you have no information about graces in other voices, so you can either set 0
> (together with the next c4, as it is currently done
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Now, all four voices separately give correct results. However, if you
> combine them in one score, you see that in voice 3 you have a clef at
> moment 1/4 (grace 0), while in voice 4 you have a clef at moment 1/4
> (grace -1/8). So, you have two clef changes at two di
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
>> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
>> grace time component (namely when no grace is present) was
Reinhold Kainhofer kainhofer.com> writes:
> The problem is what is the default for the second value (the grace moment)?
> While processing a voice like
>c4 \clef "bass" c4
> You will have to decide
> to assign the clef to either 1/4G-0 or 1/4G-inf.
The problem with 1/4 - inf G when com
Am Saturday, 27. August 2011, 01:31:43 schrieben Sie:
> If you have a series of negative infinitesimal values before each event,
> with preferences of the sort "always put this before that", ordinals might
> be used to describe it. Formally using pairs (r, x), where r is a
> Rational, and x an ordi
Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 23:05:26 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Well, here's an curious discovery: If you have a global variable
> "simultaneous-ed" into the Voice/Staff context(s), the "extra" skipped
> grace note MUST BE IN THE GLOBAL, not just explicitly placed in the other
> Voice(s)/Staff(s).
On 27 Aug 2011, at 00:51, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
>> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
>> grace time component (namely when
Am Friday, 26. August 2011, 22:59:47 schrieb Hans Aberg:
> My impression is that there is a mixture of code, sometimes putting the
> grace-note before the bar, and sometimes after.
>
> A fix might allow one to fine-tune that.
Actually, lilypond's handling is way more abstract. There are no checks
On Fr., 26. Aug. 2011 23:32:39 CEST, David Kastrup wrote:
> I checked around, and Rationals (which are used for time) have a
> representation of -inf. I think it would be a good start if the default
> grace time component (namely when no grace is present) was not set to 0,
> but to -inf, meanin
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem —
> an acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break —
> and so I wanted to know what it would take to fix the grace sync
> problem "once
Hi all,
Well, here's an curious discovery: If you have a global variable
"simultaneous-ed" into the Voice/Staff context(s), the "extra" skipped grace
note MUST BE IN THE GLOBAL, not just explicitly placed in the other
Voice(s)/Staff(s).
\version "2.13"
% skip in voice = fail
global = { \key a
On 26 Aug 2011, at 22:47, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> I now got it working: just put in a grace note with a skip in the other
>> staff.
>
> I had already tried that in my score — doesn't fix the problem.
To fix the problem, I first commented out the other staff (in fact, some chord
names). When
Hi Hans,
> I now got it working: just put in a grace note with a skip in the other staff.
I had already tried that in my score — doesn't fix the problem.
> However, when trying to use \bar ":||", like in the manual, then all sorts of
> strange things happen.
=(
Kieren.
Wow, this still isn't fixed?
I'll put money towards this, too.
-Jonathan
- Original Message -
> From: Kieren MacMillan
> To: Lilypond-User Mailing List
> Cc: Lilypond Bugreports
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:43 AM
> Subject: grace synchronization
On 26 Aug 2011, at 21:30, Hans Aberg wrote:
> On 26 Aug 2011, at 17:43, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>
>> I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
>> acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
>> wanted to k
On 26 Aug 2011, at 17:43, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
> acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
> wanted to know what it would take to fix the grace sync problem "once a
Kieren MacMillan sympatico.ca> writes:
>
> What total bounty would cover a rewrite of the code so that grace note
> synchronization is not a concern at all for the user?
This job is difficult to scope. The timing system is used in many different
places, and in some places special code handles
Hello all,
I'm running into a rather irritating grace synchronization problem — an
acciaccatura in one voice is overriding an explicit page break — and so I
wanted to know what it would take to fix the grace sync problem "once and for
all".
I know of Issue 34 (and others) in t
Comment #17 on issue 34 by reinhold...@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Comment by Keith O'Hara on bug-lilypond:
However, in my eyes we need to distinguish the events at each moment.
Basically, we have three different types of events:
Comment #16 on issue 34 by reinhold...@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Am Donnerstag, 21. Juli 2011, 08:05:22 schrieben Sie:
Comment #15 on issue 34 by d...@gnu.org: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id
Comment #15 on issue 34 by d...@gnu.org: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Well, if we have
\grace c8 \clef "bass" d4
then the clef needs to be at 0G after all.
Instead of -inf, one could try #f (no grace timing) unless that causes too
ma
googlecode.com> writes:
> Comment #14 on issue 34 by reinhold...@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
>
> However, in my eyes we need to distinguish the events at each moment.
> Basically, we have three different types
Comment #14 on issue 34 by reinhold...@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
I did a little digging and the issue is that all \set commands (like the
clef) and all other events (like KeyEvent) are treated as if they occurred
together with the
Comment #13 on issue 34 by carlo.stemberger: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Debian issues #153782 and #153784 are forwarded here.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=153782
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=153784
Comment #12 on issue 34 by paconet@gmail.com: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Re: comment #4 both cases now produce the same output.
Examples on #1 and #2 still valid.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug
Comment #11 on issue 34 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Issue 1302 has been merged into this issue.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman
Comment #10 on issue 34 by arnonokia6230: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
I got almost all thingies i experienced in the grace note oddities' realm
with a construction like:
s64 \grace c8 h2*31/32
instead of:
\grace c8 h2
Given that nobo
Comment #9 on issue 34 by percival.music.ca: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Issue 1052 has been merged into this issue.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue
Comment #8 on issue 34 by percival.music.ca: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Fair enough, but nobody *else* has the resources to dive that deep.
Believe me, we
know about the bug. But unless anybody steps forward to tackle it, adding
more noise
Comment #7 on issue 34 by harmathdenes: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
I understand that this would be a tremendous amount work, since handling
grace notes
this way seems like a fundamental design decision. Unfortunately, although a
developer
Comment #6 on issue 34 by grahamnus: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
It's low priority because nobody wants to work on it.
If you're interested in helping out, please do! If you're not willing to
work on it
yourself, then reali
Comment #5 on issue 34 by harmathdenes: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
May I ask why this is Low priority? This is a serious issue: consider a huge
partition beginning with grace notes... I can't achieve correct output even
after
putting
Comment #4 on issue 34 by gpermus: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Whenever anybody looks at this, here's another fun case:
% order of commands can result in beamed or unbeamed material
\version "2.13.2"
\relative c' {
% these
Issue 34: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Comment #3 by v.villenave:
For whoever is going to work on this issue, please also have a look at
Issue 630.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or
Issue 34: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Comment #2 by v.villenave:
% Another report from David:
\version "2.11.47"
\score {
\context Staff <<
\clef "F"
\relative c {
\appoggia
Issue 34: Grace synchronization
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=34
Comment #1 by v.villenave:
A related bug report from Eliot Bates:
The instrumentName doesn't appear on the second staff.
\version "2.11.41"
<<
\new Staff { \set Staff.in
46 matches
Mail list logo
