It works fine in 2.11.51
Jon
Matthew Rowles wrote:
That sort of beaming is broken in 2.10.33.
I think that it is fixed in the current dev version... (but I'm yet to
try it out)
2008/7/15 Chris Canipe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm struggling in my attempts at beaming two sixteenths in the middle
That sort of beaming is broken in 2.10.33.
I think that it is fixed in the current dev version... (but I'm yet to
try it out)
2008/7/15 Chris Canipe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm struggling in my attempts at beaming two sixteenths in the middle of a
> triplet. Is this possible with automatic beamin
I'm struggling in my attempts at beaming two sixteenths in the middle of a
triplet. Is this possible with automatic beaming, or must one result to beam
counts?
I've attached an example showing my current output and my desired output;
code follows:
\paper{ ragged-right=##t }
\relative c'' {
\t
This argument is like: "I have all the predefined commands I need for
editing all my LilyPond files".
Currently JEdit with LilyPondTool is the only editor for LilyPond that
provides syntax checking and autocompletion of tweaks. I consider those
such crucial features I can't image how other peo
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 22:40:35 + (UTC)
David Kendal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a pair of "Amen" pieces I'm trying to typeset.
> Being traditional church music, they have no time
> signature - and the bar lengths are very odd,
> the bars only being there to organise the piece and aid reh
>> Satisfying the checker... which thinks I'm top-posting otherwise.
I have a pair of "Amen" pieces I'm trying to typeset.
Being traditional church music, they have no time
signature - and the bar lengths are very odd,
the bars only being there to organise the piece and aid rehearsal.
So, o
Hi Mats,
I am using version 2.11.46. The layout I was using appeared to correspond
to that of 2.10 (in fact, I'm no longer sure I used Les Nereides, I may
have just gotten the template from the proper place for 2.10). I have now
fixed the layout to follow the 2.11 documentation,
http://lily
Graham Percival wrote Monday, July 14, 2008 11:01 PM
I've never actually used jedit myself, but I'm quite impressed
with the screenshots and video showing off the advanced commands
(auto-completion, docs, etc). I think that most people *would*
be better served by using lilypondtool.
Perhaps
Graham Percival wrote Monday, July 14, 2008 6:40 PM
Non-command-line people should
be using jedit anyway, so they get the three-click toggle that Bert was
talking about.
No I shouldn't. I have a text editing environment that has all the features
I need for editing all my text files, and I ha
What LilyPond version do you use? Don't expect an example written for
version 2.5 to provide optimal layout in a later version, especially
not if it uses such strange tricks as this particular example. To find
a relevant example to use as a starting point, look at the "Templates"
section of the m
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:39:31 +0200
Reinhold Kainhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Montag, 14. Juli 2008 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:25:09 + (UTC)
> >
> > Given this difference, I'm not convinced that this predef is
> > really needed. Looking at the docs and finding
I don't think it's about forcing to use a specific editor. Personally I
love all editors that provide shortcuts, macros or whatever to ease
lilypond development. Unfortunately there is not many of them.
So I have the following points:
- put as many features into editors as you can
- put as many
After months of work, I just finished setting a long piece for piano, using
the example
LES NÉRÉIDES given in http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.5/examples.html as a
template.
This uses dynamics between the two staves,
\score {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = "upper" \upper
\new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 14. Juli 2008 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:25:09 + (UTC)
>
> Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, if we need to emphasize the
> > difference (that you can't have point and click on in part of your
>
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:25:09 + (UTC)
Carl Sorensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, if we need to emphasize the
> difference (that you can't have point and click on in part of your
> music and off everywhere else), then perhaps it's better to have an
> entirely different construct, so \n
Valentin Villenave a écrit, Monday, July 14, 2008 7:25 PM,
2008/7/14 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Two good points. So why do we need \pointAndClickOn?
John Mandereau (whom I've just met with) has just given me an example
of a case where one would need a \pointAndClickOn:
suppose y
James E. Bailey wrote:
> personally, I like having predefined commands. I don't know how to
> say \key fis \major in scheme, and I don't want to know. Leaving
> that kind of predefined command to the editor forces everyone to use
> an (or /the/) editor that can send that kind of information. The
>
2008/7/14 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Two good points. So why do we need \pointAndClickOn?
John Mandereau (whom I've just met with) has just given me an example
of a case where one would need a \pointAndClickOn:
suppose you have a default stylesheet file, called e.g. "layout.ly",
that
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
> Mark Knoop wrote Monday, July 14, 2008 9:56 AM
>
> > On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 02:21 +, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >> Mats Bengtsson ee.kth.se> writes:
> >> OK, I'll bite.
> >>
> Two good points. So why do we need \pointAndClickOn?
> It is on by default,
Le 14 juil. 08 à 14:19, Bertalan Fodor (LilyPondTool) a écrit :
Well, the fun is that it seems that Scheme creators like predefined
commands as well. Think of the commands
cadr, caddr, cadddr, which are essentially:
(car (list-tail mylist 2)) (car (list-tail mylist 3)) (car (list-
tail mylis
Well, the fun is that it seems that Scheme creators like predefined
commands as well. Think of the commands
cadr, caddr, cadddr, which are essentially:
(car (list-tail mylist 2)) (car (list-tail mylist 3)) (car (list-tail
mylist 4))
In SRFI-1, the first extension of the Scheme language even inc
madhg wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Example below.
>
> The lyrics for the last section are engraved aligned with the second
> stanza for the repeated section. The lyrics are going to get lower and
> lower down if there are more repeated sections.
> ...
>
OK, I found the answer by trial and error: a
Spot on Carl Thanks
What country are you from?
Carl Sorensen-3 wrote:
>
> Thermo iinet.net.au> writes:
>
>>
>>
>> I have this to build the guitar chords
>> guitarChords = \chordmode {d a/fis g:7 g/a (etc) }
>>
>> Then I have this to build the whole score:
>>
>> \score {
>
Am 14.07.2008 um 12:28 schrieb Carl D. Sorensen:
On 7/14/08 3:24 AM, "Nicolas Sceaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Le 14 juil. 08 à 04:21, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
I propose some new predefined functions:
\pointAndClickOn
pointAndClickOn = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #t)
and
\point
On 7/14/08 3:24 AM, "Nicolas Sceaux" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 14 juil. 08 à 04:21, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>
>> I propose some new predefined functions:
>>
>> \pointAndClickOn
>>
>> pointAndClickOn = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #t)
>>
>> and
>>
>> \pointAndClickOff
>>
>> pointAndCli
Mark Knoop wrote Monday, July 14, 2008 9:56 AM
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 02:21 +, Carl Sorensen wrote:
Mats Bengtsson ee.kth.se> writes:
OK, I'll bite.
I propose some new predefined functions:
\pointAndClickOn
pointAndClickOn = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #t)
and
\pointAndClickOff
Le 14 juil. 08 à 04:21, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
I propose some new predefined functions:
\pointAndClickOn
pointAndClickOn = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #t)
and
\pointAndClickOff
pointAndClickOff = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #f)
These do not do what you think they do.
When the
On Mon, 2008-07-14 at 02:21 +, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Mats Bengtsson ee.kth.se> writes:
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> I propose some new predefined functions:
>
> \pointAndClickOn
>
> pointAndClickOn = #(ly:set-option 'point-and-click #t)
>
> and
>
> \pointAndClickOff
>
> pointAndClickOff = #(ly:
personally, I like having predefined commands. I don't know how to say
\key fis \major in scheme, and I don't want to know. Leaving that kind
of predefined command to the editor forces everyone to use an (or the)
editor that can send that kind of information. The predefined commands
are a r
Very good point :-) This is my real question as well.
I remember this is not the first time that a new predefined command is
added (or requested) for something that could be better handled with the
editor.
Bert
James E. Bailey wrote:
I don't know if this is really crowding the LilyPond namesp
I don't know if this is really crowding the LilyPond namespace with a
feature that as far as I know is in one tool attached to a specific
editor. I mean, if that's the case, why have any editor features as
predefined commands in the first place?
Am 14.07.2008 um 09:26 schrieb Bertalan Fodor
Yeah, it was very difficult. Exactly 3 clicks in LilyPondTool since
years. (LilyPond > Source editing > Toggle point-and-click)
I don't think we should crowd the LilyPond command namespace with editor
features.
Bert
James E. Bailey wrote:
Am 14.07.2008 um 04:21 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
Mat
32 matches
Mail list logo
