> (1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the
> bare argument "3": \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of
> course, I'm a dodo, but I predict that Mats & Erik & several others
> would wind up spending a lot of time explaining what "\times 7" (or
> "\tuplet 7") means.
Ind
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }>>>
I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \tim
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion started with my
discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding syntax is not
really in that direction.
Another option:
- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
- replace \
> I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
> with \time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Opinion --
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the bare
argument "3": \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of course, I'm
> I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
> parser machinery.
Why do you think so? Sometimes syntactic sugar is essential to make
certain situations more comprehensible. Just think of TeX's `=' mark
in things like
\count\foo=1
which can be omitted.
> I think it w
Might be an idea, but why should we keep two functions making the same
function?
Does it cost that much on functionality to use two differents syntax in the
same function?
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> Erik Sandberg gmail.com> writ
hello list,
i'm new to lilypond and this is my first message to the list. first of
all, a big thank you to all the developers and contributors for this
great software.
i've been reading the documentation and i've been able to begin
typesetting a simple piano piece in traditional notation. there
Quothe Mats offlist :
===
To print the mark at the end of the current line, use
\override Score.RehearsalMark
#'break-visibility = #begin-of-line-invisible
===
Best
Nick D
Nick Didkovsky wrote:
Hello
I want a rehearsal mark to sh
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
> Erik Sandberg gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the parser
>> machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
> proper
>> music function, e.g. as
>> \tuplet 2 3 {...}
>> This would remove
Erik Sandberg gmail.com> writes:
> I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the parser
> machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
proper
> music function, e.g. as
> \tuplet 2 3 {...}
> This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding
Citando David Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
>
> >The thing is that the music is a hymn so i cant make different lines
> >of lyrics for different voices
>
>
Ezequiel, it's hard to understand what you really want. I sent the file
001-modif.ly and it doesn't seem you are tryin
Hello,
how can I change the horizontal spacing of a Staff or Voice in a way it
doesn't modify other staffs? I mean overriding Score.SeparationItem
#'padding will not come good.
I just want to enlarge the space somewhere and reduce some other place.
I tried s16 and setting time back with \set S
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frédéric Chiasson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 déc. 2006 17:45
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I prefer to keep the punctuation ":" and "/" to avoid confusion.
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Erik Sandberg <[EMAI
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
> >> I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
> >> the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
> >
> > If at all, then
> >
> > \tuplet 3:2 {...}
>
> I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet,
> > Well, in that case just stay with \times.
>
> I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \times and
> replace it by \tuplet (which I think is a good idea). Just wanted to
> see if anybody had any bright idea on a command name that's accurate
> also in this special case.
Han-Wen says
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
>The thing is that the music is a hymn so i cant make different lines
>of lyrics for different voices
But you don't need to - that's my whole point. Forget the whole idea of making
a syllable line up with the alto note. The singers don't care, and it doesn't
matter. Ju
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
>look in the upper voice the bes8 will only have the word "el" from
>"siem pre el" and "pre" should go in the second f on the lower
>
>get it?
Yes, now I get it exactly. It doesn't work this way. The alto needs its own
(new, separate) line of lyrics, if you want it diff
look in the upper voice the bes8 will only have the word "el" from
"siem pre el" and "pre" should go in the second f on the lower
get it?
On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first
meassure what
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first meassure
what im trying to do is to place the lyrics in all five notes
I don't understand. Do you mean the music to "Siem -- pre el la -- bio ..."?
There, in the upper stave, the upper voice is bes'4. bes8 bes
David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first meassure
what im trying to do is to place the lyrics in all five notes
On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:15 PM, David Rogers wrote:
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
could you maile me the example then?
Sorry, but I think I misunderstood your other messa
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
>could you maile me the example then?
Sorry, but I think I misunderstood your other message. I don't know if
associatedVoice works, or even how it works. I only know that Eduardo's example
(which he already sent) works fine, when you correct some missing hyphens and
some
Paul Scott wrote:
>Is it relevant that ':' and '/' actually both mean divide?
In music, an expression like 3:2 has a specific, universally-agreed-upon
meaning. Therefore, IMO, a broader mathematical meaning is not really important
in this context.
David
_
I tried the function and I don't see any incoherence using \tuplet instead
of \times in this situation. Maybe I don't understand the point well.
For me, I wouldn't mid at all to replace entirely the \times function by a
\tuplet function, giving both options of using a fraction (2/3) or the
engrav
Maybe, but it is more that it is "7:8" that would be engraved, and not
"7/8". So it is alright to separate both options.
2006/12/19, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
>
>>> I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
>>>
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a
could you maile me the example then?
On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:49 AM, David Rogers wrote:
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
nop it dosent work :(
On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Eduardo Vieira wrote:
associatedVoice
Yes, it does work. I tried Eduardo's example myself.
David
___
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
Well, in that case just stay with \times.
I thought the proposal was t
On Tue 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> This should be a rather trivial change, so once we have consensus on the
> list
I consent. I don't mind the current syntax, but \tuplet is definitely more
clear than \times.
Eyolf
--
It is Mr. Mellon's credo that $200,000,000 can do no
> We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Good!
> This should be a rather trivial change, so once we have consensus on
> the list I would welcome a patch.
Not before Xmas :-(
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http
> > \tuplet 3:2 {...}
> >
>
> One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
> do
> \set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
> \times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
Well, in that case just stay with \times.
Werner
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
>> I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
>> the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
>
> If at all, then
>
> \tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tu
Luc,
When I did this for Context I scanned the manual and all the regression test
cases, it took me a while to do it. I'm using Context, but I'd be
interested in trying Notepad++ also as a backup. Can you maybe upload the
configuration files for Notepad/lilypond at some point for others to use?
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
/Mats
___
lilypond
> On the contrary, I think making mathematical sense serves a very
> practical purpose: it is more consistent with the non-tuplet method
> of scaling duration and it is (at least for me) easier to remember.
Mhmm.
> In LilyPond, if I want to print a half note but I only want it to
> use the durat
34 matches
Mail list logo
