On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 07:11 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Joe Neeman wrote:
>
> > There doesn't seem to be. As a workaround, you could add a context
> > property called, say, "spanArpeggioInThisContext" and document somewhere
> > that the \connectArpeggiosOn command works in the lowermost context
>
Joe Neeman wrote:
> There doesn't seem to be. As a workaround, you could add a context
> property called, say, "spanArpeggioInThisContext" and document somewhere
> that the \connectArpeggiosOn command works in the lowermost context
> where spanArpeggioInThisContext is true. This preserves the abi
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 21:23 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Neil Puttock wrote:
> > (let* ((Arpeggio
> > arpeggio (or something else without the capital letter)
>
> What's bad about the capital letter? I capitalized it because it's
> a grob-name and grob-names are capitalized. Does the same problem
>
Neil Puttock wrote:
> Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but have you considered what
> will happen if an innocent user adds the Span_arpeggio_engraver to the
> Staff context in order to span voices on one stave?
Can you give an example that fails? (You may want to read my reply to
Joe first
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 14:01 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> > Otherwise, does this look good?
>
> I'm sorry to keep doing this, but I keep finding ways of
> improving this. Now I think users should find this very
> intuitive, although the internal workings are more complex.
>
2009/8/4 Mark Polesky :
> Anyone have any comments/suggestions?
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but have you considered what
will happen if an innocent user adds the Span_arpeggio_engraver to the
Staff context in order to span voices on one stave?
A few nitpicks:
(not (null? parent))
(n
Mark Polesky writes:
> Mark Polesky wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, does this look good?
>
> I'm sorry to keep doing this, but I keep finding ways of
> improving this. Now I think users should find this very
> intuitive, although the internal workings are more complex.
>
> I've attached the most recent ve
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Otherwise, does this look good?
I'm sorry to keep doing this, but I keep finding ways of
improving this. Now I think users should find this very
intuitive, although the internal workings are more complex.
I've attached the most recent version, which includes an
annotated ex
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Hopefully there are no more snafus, but I need you guys to test this.
> Let me know if you find any problems. I'd like to apply this if the
> developers approve.
In the file attached to the previous post
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-08/txtDIrSYMGg1c
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Okay, this is not ready yet. I found a confusing problem. When setting
> connectArpeggios to #f after it has been #t, there's some issue with
> the unreverted PianoStaff stencil somehow overriding the new Voice
> stencil. Or something. I'm not really sure -- it's confusing.
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Any objections? How close is this to being acceptable? I'll wait for
> approval.
Okay, this is not ready yet. I found a confusing problem. When setting
connectArpeggios to #f after it has been #t, there's some issue with
the unreverted PianoStaff stencil somehow overriding
Joe Neeman wrote:
> Have you tried using ly:context-property-where-defined instead of
> searching for PianoStaff explicitly? There are non-PianoStaff contexts
> containing Span_arpeggio_engraver, after all. Other than that, this is a
> very cool trick!
Joe,
Thanks for the tip. I rewrote arpeggi
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 18:58 -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> > Interesting idea. As a first attempt, I tried making the functionality
> > of the \arpeggioArrowUp command dependent on the 'connectArpeggios
> > context property, but obviously I'm doing something wrong. Does anyon
Mark Polesky wrote:
> ;; not sure if the conditional tests are necessary
> (if PianoStaff
> (arpeggio-generic PianoStaff
> `(stencil X-extent arpeggio-direction dash-definition)))
> (if Staff
> (arpeggio-generic Staff
> `(stencil X-ext
Mark Polesky wrote:
> Interesting idea. As a first attempt, I tried making the functionality
> of the \arpeggioArrowUp command dependent on the 'connectArpeggios
> context property, but obviously I'm doing something wrong. Does anyone
> know why this doesn't work? Can anyone see how to make this
David Kastrup wrote:
> This sounds to me like giving users a low-level manual way to fudge
> around a bug/design mistake. This sounds like something that should
> happen automatically in most cases.
Interesting idea. As a first attempt, I tried making the functionality
of the \arpeggioArrowUp co
Patrick McCarty writes:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:42:47PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>>
>> \arpeggioArrowUp etc. doesn't work with cross-staff arpeggios
>> because the arpeggio-direction property is overridden at the
>> Voice level, and not the PianoStaff level. To facilitate this
>> situati
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:42:47PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
>
> \arpeggioArrowUp etc. doesn't work with cross-staff arpeggios
> because the arpeggio-direction property is overridden at the
> Voice level, and not the PianoStaff level. To facilitate this
> situation for users, I propose adding th
\arpeggioArrowUp etc. doesn't work with cross-staff arpeggios
because the arpeggio-direction property is overridden at the
Voice level, and not the PianoStaff level. To facilitate this
situation for users, I propose adding these four commands to
ly/property-init.ly:
connectArpeggioArrowUp = {
19 matches
Mail list logo
