I invite you to search the archives for a patch from me. I posted
some improvements (maybe last year?) for use with vocal music. Han
Wen wanted something more general, which I started but became too busy
to complete. I was going to have the C++ part combiner consult a
state machine (defi
"Anthony W. Youngman" writes:
> I'm game. My two problems are (1) finding time, and (2) I'll need a
> fair bit of hand-holding to start off with, I expect. I'm very much a
> procedurally trained programmer (C, Fortran, *decent* BASICs).
You'll find that most of the "functional" claim in Scheme (
> "Anthony" == Anthony W Youngman writes:
Anthony> I'm game. My two problems are (1) finding time, and (2) I'll
Anthony> need a fair bit of hand-holding to start off with, I
Anthony> expect. I'm very much a procedurally trained programmer (C,
Anthony> Fortran, *decent* BASICs).
In the meanti
In message , Kieren
MacMillan writes
Hi Reinhold, Wol, et al:
I've been thinking about implementing something like that myself
(basically
controlling combined/split voices via context properties,
overriding the bad
choices the partcombiner makes).
What say we make a serious effort at rewri
Hi Reinhold, Wol, et al:
I've been thinking about implementing something like that myself
(basically
controlling combined/split voices via context properties,
overriding the bad
choices the partcombiner makes).
What say we make a serious effort at rewriting the partcombiner from
the grou
In message <200909140024.50780.reinh...@kainhofer.com>, Reinhold
Kainhofer writes
Am Sonntag, 13. September 2009 23:22:04 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
If it hasn't been done, it sounds like it would be a good idea to try
and combine the voice combining and part combining code with switches to
s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Sonntag, 13. September 2009 23:22:04 schrieb Anthony W. Youngman:
> If it hasn't been done, it sounds like it would be a good idea to try
> and combine the voice combining and part combining code with switches to
> say how much should be merged/drop
In message , James
E. Bailey writes
On 13.09.2009, at 17:59, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Using partcombine, I think it's doing its job properly. But the result is a
mass of "a2", "Solo I", "Solo II" which I don't want. I'd like both parts
printed in full, with only "a2" where they're both pla
On 13.09.2009, at 17:59, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
Using partcombine, I think it's doing its job properly. But the
result is a mass of "a2", "Solo I", "Solo II" which I don't want.
I'd like both parts printed in full, with only "a2" where they're
both playing the same.
I haven't tried i
In message , Kieren
MacMillan writes
Hi all,
\\ is quite more convenient than explicit voices and thus an important
idiom that makes Lilypond friendlier to the user.
Yes, but as previously discussed, the confusion it (ultimately) causes is a
poor trade-off. The whole problem would be solved
Kieren MacMillan wrote Tuesday, September 08, 2009 5:08 PM
Does this mean you don't need me to immediately rework how \\
voicifies?
I think I'll go ahead with the reordering anyway,
although it might take a while, as I have limited
time at present. So let's decouple the rewrite
of docs and
Hi Trevor,
I now think teaching the \new Voice method at the start gives a
better and sounder grounding.
I've always thought so...
Does this mean you don't need me to immediately rework how \\ voicifies?
Would that still be a good thing regardless of how the docs are written?
Cheers,
Kieren
Kieren MacMillan wrote Monday, September 07, 2009 7:40 PM
which works fine, if I understand what you want. So I was
wondering if Trevor was referring to something else...
Yes, I was thinking more of \lyricsto, which
needs a named context, and perhaps SATB on
two staves. I originally place
Hi Karl,
or when there are lyrics to assign.
What do you mean here?
Do you mean lyrics to assign to the *second voice* (since the first
voice assignment would be automagic)?
Try:
\version "2.13.0"
\score {
\new Staff {
\time 4/4
\relative g' { g4 << g \\ d >> g2 }
}
\addlyrics
...
> > or when there are lyrics to assign.
> What do you mean here?
> Do you mean lyrics to assign to the *second voice* (since the first
> voice assignment would be automagic)?
Try:
\version "2.13.0"
\score {
\new Staff {
\time 4/4
\relative g' { g4 << g \\ d >> g2 }
}
\addlyri
Hi Trevor,
This change would help, but I don't think it
would solve the whole problem. You'd still have
an implied name for the second context, so it
doesn't work in more than one staff
Probably true... I'll have to examine the ramifications.
or when there are lyrics to assign.
What do yo
Kieren MacMillan wrote Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:34 PM
\\ is quite more convenient than explicit voices and thus an
important
idiom that makes Lilypond friendlier to the user.
Yes, but as previously discussed, the confusion it (ultimately)
causes is a poor
trade-off. The whole problem w
Hi all,
> \\ is quite more convenient than explicit voices and thus an important
> idiom that makes Lilypond friendlier to the user.
Yes, but as previously discussed, the confusion it (ultimately) causes is a
poor trade-off. The whole problem would be solved if \\ Did The Right Thing,
i.e.
<<
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
> I've finally got around to thinking about the introduction to parallel
> voices in the Learning Manual - currently sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
> You'll remember the many discussions about the two constructs -
> explicit voices and the \\ construct, and the
> final agreeme
I've finally got around to thinking about the introduction to
parallel voices in the Learning Manual - currently sections 3.2.1
and 3.2.2. You'll remember the many discussions about the two
constructs - explicit voices and the \\ construct, and the
final agreement to introduce explicit voices f
20 matches
Mail list logo
