I believe that Score.markFormatter only works from \mark \default for
the others you need:
\mark \markup{ \box A1 }
, etc.
Paul Scott
Yes ! ~ It works. ^_^
Thank you all very much :)
Neuro
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lil
Neuro wrote:
Thank Frédéric veru much, ^_^
But, I did.
\set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
\mark \default%% so, this is "boxed A"
\mark "A1"%% this is unboxed A1, bu I prefer "boxed A1"
\mark "A2"%%
\mark "A3"%%
\mark \default%% this is "boxed B"
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 06:22:05PM -0800, Neuro wrote:
>
> Thank Frédéric veru much, ^_^
>
> But, I did.
>
> \set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
> \mark \default%% so, this is "boxed A"
> \mark "A1"%% this is unboxed A1, bu I prefer "boxed A1"
> \mark "A2"%%
>
Thank Frédéric veru much, ^_^
But, I did.
\set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
\mark \default%% so, this is "boxed A"
\mark "A1"%% this is unboxed A1, bu I prefer "boxed A1"
\mark "A2"%%
\mark "A3"%%
\mark \default%% this is "boxed B"
..., so what
You can use :
\set Score.markFormatter = #format-mark-box-letters
to put boxes around letters
Frédéric
2006/12/20, Neuro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Excuse me, I am almost newbie...
I have a quick small question here:
How do you mark a extra "boxed" rehersal mark such as "A1" ?
My script goes
Excuse me, I am almost newbie...
I have a quick small question here:
How do you mark a extra "boxed" rehersal mark such as "A1" ?
My script goes like this:
\mark \default%% supposse this is "boxed A"
\mark "A1"%% supposse this is A1, bu I prefer "boxed A1"
\mark "A2"%% sup
>And I definitely don't want \times #'(2 . 3) This pseudo-Scheme syntax
is
>very hard to understand for the beginner, especially the " ' " ! The
least
>Scheme syntax necessary, the better!
I agree!
Tim Reeves___
lilypond-user mailing list
lily
On 12/20/06, Jonathan Henkelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
OK, I'm starting to have a hard time keeping all the pieces together. I'll
try and summarize the discussion so far.
There seems to be general consensus:
- that having both \times and \tuplet is unnecessary and confusing. It
should
be o
Hi,
One more fun example with graces under 2.11.3.
Proportional notation settings keep notes in place; GraceSpacing
settings can move graces around.
%%% BEGIN %%%
\version "2.11.3"
\layout { indent = #0
ragged-right = ##t
}
\paper { between-system-padding = #10 }
\new Staff \with {
\rem
Good!
Frédéric
2006/12/20, Kress, Stephen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Ok. Based on what everyone has been saying and seeming to come to an
agreement on, here's the details of the changes that we are proposing be
made.
1. \times is replaced by \tuplet since tuplet makes more musical sense
and con
Ok. Based on what everyone has been saying and seeming to come to an agreement
on, here's the details of the changes that we are proposing be made.
1. \times is replaced by \tuplet since tuplet makes more musical sense and
convert-ly can easily be updated to make the change. Because of conve
« Although I like the idea of accepting both \tuplet 3:2 and \tuplet 2/3,
I don't like the notion of having \tuplet and \times. I suppose we
could keep \times as an old command and remove it from the manual to
avoid confusion... but that seems silly. Either eliminate \times, or
don't bother intr
Hi,
This is kind of an antibugreport or, perhaps, a cool feature report.
2.11.3 fixes things with afterGrace described in issue 176:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=176&can=1&q=
2.11.3 supports, therefore, opposite-stem after graces interspersed
between manually beamed note
John Mandereau free.fr> writes:
> I've just submitted a patch on lilypond-devel which should fix that.
> Until its commit and the next releases, you can browse the docs online,
> or try to the download the 2.10.1 docball, which should be OK:
> http://download.linuxaudio.org/lilypond/binaries/docu
Jonathan Henkelman wrote:
> Does anyone have a work around for using the internal documentation on the
> local
> machine. I have downloaded the tarball, but the links are all broken (both on
> IE and Firefox) because they do not include filename suffixes. I'm going away
> over the break and woul
Does anyone have a work around for using the internal documentation on the local
machine. I have downloaded the tarball, but the links are all broken (both on
IE and Firefox) because they do not include filename suffixes. I'm going away
over the break and would like to be able to reference them.
OK, I'm starting to have a hard time keeping all the pieces together. I'll
try and summarize the discussion so far.
There seems to be general consensus:
- that having both \times and \tuplet is unnecessary and confusing. It should
be one _or_ the other.
- that \tuplet is clearer than \times du
Karl Hammar wrote:
Werner:
Erik:
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 instea
thank you very much mats for your prompt and detailed answer! i'll try
to upgrade soon to 2.10.3 (out yesterday!) and look at the examples you
mention.
Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> It seems that all three of your problems would classify as bugs or at
> least as requests for e
On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> (2) \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3:2 don't mean the same thing:
> \times 2/3 {c8 d e d e f}
> makes sense, but I don't think that
> \tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
> does. The least messy option would be the status quo. The keyword
> \times
Werner:
>
Erik:
> > 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
Please don't add redundant constructs, that will just cause the confusion.
If we introduce \tuplet, then we should definitely remove \times, just as
Graham said.
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Indeed, `\times 3' is problematic, but `\tuplet 3' sounds clear to me.
Additionally, I suggest that `\tuplet 3'
Yes, this is exactly what I need
Thank you!
Bert
Mats Bengtsson írta:
I'm not sure I understand. Do you want a layout where simultaneous notes
in different staves don't necessarily have the same horizontal position?
One trick you could do, is described in "Scaling durations". For
example, you
luis jure wrote:
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.
Welcome!
...
now i have three questions regarding a short fragment i've written, i
hope it's OK to atta
Paul Scott wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Indeed, `\times 3' is problematic, but `\tuplet 3' sounds clear to me.
Additionally, I suggest that `\tuplet 3' prints the `3' above the
group, while `\tuplet 3:2' prints `3:2' (which some composers prefer).
You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword
I'm not sure I understand. Do you want a layout where simultaneous notes
in different staves don't necessarily have the same horizontal position?
One trick you could do, is described in "Scaling durations". For
example, you
can replace
c4 d e f
by
c4*5/4 d4*3/4 e4 f
/Mats
Bertalan Fodor wrot
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
(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"
27 matches
Mail list logo
