David Kastrup writes:
[...]
>> Now David thinks he is the focus of ire and has lost necessary sleep
>> over it. That is unfortunate (and wrong).
>
> I lose sleep easily, anyway. Why, last night alone the mare buzzer
> went off twice, but no foal yet. And no, that is not a metaphor for
> anythi
Francisco Vila writes:
> 2012/5/9 David Kastrup :
>> I don't presume to understand humans: I have been diagnosed with
>> personality disorders also connected with a lack of empathy.
>
> At this point I need to express something that makes the previous
> paragraph sound better. [Just like many ot
2012/5/9 David Kastrup :
> I don't presume to understand humans: I have been diagnosed with
> personality disorders also connected with a lack of empathy.
At this point I need to express something that makes the previous
paragraph sound better. [Just like many other free software
contributors] you
"Now let's consider this calmly-" began Atticus, but Mr. Gilmer
interrupted with an objection: he was not irrelevant or immaterial,
but Atticus was browbeating the witness.
Judge Taylor laughed outright. "Oh sit down, Horace, he's doing
nothing of the sort. If anything, the wi
James gmail.com> writes:
> The justification has so far been this
>
> 1. Some programmers like it because it does something inside the code
Not that I've heard.
The only difference in results is that users absolutely must remember
to specify the duration of the next note or lyric after s1*0,
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 22:28, David Kastrup wrote:
> Pavel Roskin writes:
>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
>>> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>>>
>>> \new Staff <<
>>> \relat
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> No. Didn't I list <> as an possibility? The goal being to find the
> consensus solution. You have a firm opinion about what is best;
> others disagree.
No, they don't. Not a single reasoning has been countered. They just
don't like it. You are looking for a compr
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 11:06 AM
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:48 AM
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1 Chorded
Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were instigated by m
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:48 AM
>
>
>> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
>>> in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
>>
>> I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1 Chor
Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, May 08, 2012 3:48 AM
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1
Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Keith OHara writes:
> I had complained that this method caused problems when instruments
> take cues from each other, but these problems are avoided so
> long as the temporary voice is explicitly created and finished.
>
> The uses to finish spanners after the last note,
> { e'2\p\< d'\> s1*0\
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
> in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1
Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were in
David Kastrup writes:
> Pavel Roskin writes:
>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
>>> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>>>
>>> \new Staff <<
>>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\m
Pavel Roskin writes:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
>> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>>
>> \new Staff <<
>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
>
> A sp
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
A spacer 1 unit wide and 0 units high.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:54:49PM +0100, James wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 20:32, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
>
> > Now that this is settled,
>
> Oh that's ok then. I'll get my coat.
Yep.
> > I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and neat,
> > faced such opposition. I, for one
> I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and
> neat, faced such opposition. I, for one, will be using the new <>
> idiom.
+1. I'm open to syntax improvements, but currently I fail to see one
which fulfils the necessary constraints. As other have suggested:
Let's do thi
Nicolas Sceaux wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 8:32 PM
Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :
\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
} \addlyrics { Oh no }
\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> <>\!
} \addlyrics { Oh yes }
I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 20:32, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
> Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.
> Now that this is settled,
Oh that's ok then. I'll get my coat.
> I don't understand why David's proposition, which is bo
Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :
> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh no }
>
> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> <>\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh yes }
I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.
Now th
Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
> > James gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
Oops. I thought 's' stood for "skip", but it stands for "spacer rest".
Chords are covered in the Learning Manual, though empty chords are not,
yet. Neither s
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
[...]
> Let's forget the unrealistic convoluted examples and look
> at a real case where s1*0 is necessary and is used in the
> docs (taken from
> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-keyboards
> )
>
> It's needed when a crescendo
Graham Percival wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 10:29 AM
Leaving that question aside, we're talking about the preferred
method of having something which does not tamper with the current
duration but does take post-events.
A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
non-duration post-ev
Ian Hulin writes:
> Hi all,
> Point of information:
> On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> James writes:
>>>
>>
>>
>> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
>> non-duration post-event. James and I d
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:04:50AM +0100, Ian Hulin wrote:
> Hi all,
> Point of information:
>
> On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
> >
> > A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> > non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a
> > different tool (such
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>> > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>>
>> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
>> advantage of _not_ tampering with the current durati
On May 7, 2012, at 3:29 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>>> Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>>
>> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
>> advantage of _not_ tampe
Hi all,
Point of information:
On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>
>
> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a
> diffe
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> James writes:
>
> > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>
> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
> advantage of _not_ tampering with the current duration in the parser,
> and the disadv
James writes:
> On 7 May 2012 06:50, Keith OHara wrote:
>> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>> <> is less transparent, because a thoughtful user would
>> expect it to have the same duration of the previous note
>> or chord, or to be a syntax error.
>>
>> On the other hand,
>> 1) the chord c
James wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 9:11 AM
Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic?
No. You miss the point: we're not talking about something
new: <> has been valid syntax for years, but its semantics
are not documented. They should be.
Trevor
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 06:50, Keith OHara wrote:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
>> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
>> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
>> current duration happens t
Keith OHara writes:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
>> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
>> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
>> current duration happens to be.
>
> I agree with Tr
Le 6 mai 2012 à 23:54, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
>> I'm ok with using <> as a quick hack for things like convert-ly
>> rules, so I'm not arguing against David's patch. But I wouldn't
>> want to see <> becoming part of our basic vocabulary. I still
>> think that a "n" or "z" or "\null" would be m
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
> current duration happens to be.
I agree with Trevor. And with David in liking
Warning! This is an off-topic e-mail.
> I think it leads to the "perlization" of lilypond, where we end up
> looking like a ridiculous language like Haskell.
What exactly is `ridiculous' in Haskell? Personally, I find this
language quite fascinating.
Werner
_
Graham Percival wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 10:24 PM
I'm still not happy with an empty chord, especially in the
Learning Manual. I think it leads to the "perlization" of
lilypond, where we end up looking like a ridiculous language like
Haskell.
My point really is that <> exists now, so there
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>> I've no objection to the docs being changed to use an empty chord
>> but its semantics will need to be introduced somewhere. The best place
>> is probably the LM, in 2.2.4 Combining notes into chords
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 10:17:05PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> I've no objection to the docs being changed to use an empty chord
> but its semantics will need to be introduced somewhere. The best place
> is probably the LM, in 2.2.4 Combining notes into chords.
I'm still not happy with an e
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 4:44 PM
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
Actually, I don't think s1*0 appears in the docs.
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely: s1*0^\markup { \right-align { \tiny
"Flute" } }
Documentation/notation/vocal.itely: s1*0_\markup { \right-align { \tiny
"Clar."
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using
it in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>>>
>>> What a great idea! No notes generated; the duration doesn't
>>> change.
>>
>> Indeed
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 9:34 AM
>
>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking (imagine
>> you are a naive user) from the following:
>>
>> \new Staff <<
>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
>> \relative c'
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 9:34 AM
>
>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking (imagine
>> you are a naive user) from the following:
>>
>> \new Staff <<
>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
>> \relative c'
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 9:34 AM
Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking (imagine
you are a naive user) from the following:
\new Staff <<
\relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
\relative c' { c4 d e f <>-\markup Wow c d e f g1 }
Tha
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using
>>> it in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>>
>> What a great idea! No notes generated; the duration doesn't
>> change.
>
> Indeed! I wasn't aware that <> is vali
Pavel Roskin writes:
> Quoting Graham Percival :
>
>> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>>>
>>> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>>> >in code and documentation rather than
Quoting Graham Percival :
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
Definitely prettier, but maybe not s
Francisco Vila writes:
> Is s*0 valid?
No. *0 is part of the duration, not some magical repeat count.
> It would not change default duration of next note.
It should, if it were allowed.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-de
Is s*0 valid? It would not change default duration of next note. Cannot
test right now, sorry.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
David Kastrup writes:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>>>
>>> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>>> >in code and documentation rather th
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>>
>> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>> >in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>>
>> Definitely pretti
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>
>> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>> in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>
> Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
I disagree.
Quick: tell me what y
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 08:58:11AM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
>
> >In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
> >in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>
> Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, May 06, 2012 2:57 AM
In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
Definitely prettier, but maybe not so transparent as s1*0.
It is not intuitively obvious that an empty chord takes no
time and do
> There is a drawback, though. q is changed. Now q is implemented as
> <> but with the current duration on it. Which would mean that the
> total moment of
>
> { c4 <> q }
>
> would likely change when q gets expanded. While _is_ considered
> for q for consistency's sake, perhaps <> should be
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On May 5, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>>
>> But what about <>\footnote: that does not have this problem.
>>
>> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
>> in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>
>
> What a great idea!
>> But what about <>\footnote: that does not have this problem.
>>
>> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using
>> it in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
>
>
> What a great idea! No notes generated; the duration doesn't
> change.
Indeed! I wasn't aware that <>
On May 5, 2012, at 8:16 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> But what about <>\footnote: that does not have this problem.
>
> In fact, isn't <> generally prettier than s1*0? Should we be using it
> in code and documentation rather than s1*0?
What a great idea! No notes generated; the duration d
Hi,
thinking about a replacement rule for turning \footnote into a
postevent, I was thinking about replacing \footnote, if not preceded by
- ^ _, into s1*0\footnote. However, this has the disadvantage of
changing the default duration if a note without duration follows.
But what about <>\footnot
59 matches
Mail list logo
