Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 5/10/10 9:07 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>>> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>>>
Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>> can't have overl
On 5/10/10 9:07 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>>
>>> Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engr
David Kastrup writes:
> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>
>> Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>>> > So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>>> > can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>>
>> Actually, by extending the engr
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> The lifetime of Threads (or whatever you call them) is tricky. Consider
>
>
>
> % *
> % ..stuff..
> %
>
> % **
>
> How would LilyPond know that the @1 thread context must stay alive at
> the point marked %* ? The iterator for the E note would be pointing at
>
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> Also note, we had something like @1, it was just more verbose:
>
> \context Thread=TA ..
>
> and in this case, to make things work, you'd have to write them as
> parallel lines, instead of chords.
One might have invented a user interface for that. Also, with threads
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>> > So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>> > can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>
> Actually, by extending the engraver a little bit it should be
>
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> They were finally removed in LilyPond 2.1.13 (according to convert-ly)
>
> IIRC we kept them around for so long, since they were the only way to
> get per-notehead styles within a chord. After we introduced \tweak
> (IIRC), there was no n
On 5/8/10 2:43 PM, "Reinhold Kainhofer" wrote:
> Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
>>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>
> Actually, by extending the engraver a lit
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>> I like this. Up to now noone had ever such an idea, and your
>>
>> This is false.
>
> Sorry. I've then missed the discussion (or ignored it unconsciously).
Some archeology:
Threads were introduced in lilypond 01.13,
- grand E
Am Samstag, 8. Mai 2010, um 14:28:18 schrieb Werner LEMBERG:
> > So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
> > can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
Actually, by extending the engraver a little bit it should be possible. I have
had that on my list
2010/5/8 David Kastrup :
> And if we don't call it "subvoice" but work this as "labels"? The point
> would be to make (most importantly spanning) engravers deal with
> multiple simultaneously active engraving entities. One would use
> "labels" as a tweak to make them ignore ending spanners not in
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
>>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>>> But if we write something like
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and use @1 with the
>> I like this. Up to now noone had ever such an idea, and your
>
> This is false.
Sorry. I've then missed the discussion (or ignored it unconsciously).
> I had the idea earlier and unleashed it on the world. It was called
> the Thread context, and it was a disaster, because it would die or
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
>>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>>> But if we write something like
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> and use @1 with the
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>> But if we write something like
>>
>>
>>
>> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
>> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
>> But if we write something like
>>
>>
>>
>> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of
>> subvoice 1 (a
> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We
> can't have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example.
> But if we write something like
>
>
>
> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of
> subvoice 1 (a subvoice having its own engraver
Hi David,
> So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We can't
> have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example. But if we
> write something like
>
>
>
> and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of
> subvoice 1 (a subvoice having its own
David Kastrup schrieb:
[...]
So how about the ultimate tweak: using a separate engraver? We can't
have overlapping slurs with a single engraver, for example. But if we
write something like
and use @1 with the scope of a tweak, and let it use the engraver of
subvoice 1 (a subvoice having it
Had a rather sleepless night after starting coding yesterday evening.
And came up with some ideas.
Idea#1 (that which I started coding on) is rather straightforward:
replace all the data structures in the glissando_engraver by deques and
work with them in the obvious manner.
Now what if I want t
20 matches
Mail list logo
