Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

My HP 48GX is still sitting on my desk. The best calculator ever. I do not want an infix calculator! 30+ years old and still going strong. Andrew On 10/08/2022 11:20 am, Kieren MacMillan wrote As someone who has used an HP-15C as my only calculator since 1982, I want a POSTFIX version of Sche

Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Hello Jean, While this is interesting, I dispute the underlying assumption. Why do you say infix notation is easier for beginners? There's no evidence for this. And there is a huge amount of evidence against it. For very many years MIT taught computer science 6.001 exclusively in Scheme to fr

Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Jean, > > As someone who has used an HP-15C as my only calculator since 1982, I > want a POSTFIX version of Scheme, not an INFIX version! LOL I actually prefer Lisp dialects to FORTH. A bit of lambda calculus makes for a more structured view. -- David Kastrup

Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Hi Jean, As someone who has used an HP-15C as my only calculator since 1982, I want a POSTFIX version of Scheme, not an INFIX version! LOL Cheers, Kieren. > On Aug 9, 2022, at 5:45 PM, Jean Abou Samra wrote: > > Hi, > > Some time ago, Jacques Menu asked on the French-speaking equivalent of

Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Jean Abou Samra writes: > Some time ago, Jacques Menu asked on the French-speaking equivalent of > this list if it would be possible to create an infix syntax for Scheme > that would be more approachable for beginners. > > As we discussed this topic privately and he asked me questions about how >

Re: An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Am Di., 9. Aug. 2022 um 23:46 Uhr schrieb Jean Abou Samra : > > Hi, > > Some time ago, Jacques Menu asked on the French-speaking equivalent of > this list if it would be possible to create an infix syntax for Scheme > that would be more approachable for beginners. > > As we discussed this topic pri

An infix syntax for Scheme ...

Hi, Some time ago, Jacques Menu asked on the French-speaking equivalent of this list if it would be possible to create an infix syntax for Scheme that would be more approachable for beginners. As we discussed this topic privately and he asked me questions about how a possible implementation coul

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi David, > Hm, well the problem with meshing note mode and chord mode is that > tremolo notation interferes. But durations are not inside of chords. > > So 1 should be usable as poly-chord entry. Oh! That's kind of a wonderful UI, in my opinion. > c/g could be entered as alternatively: basic

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 12:29 PM Kieren MacMillan < kie...@kierenmacmillan.info> wrote: > Hi Jean, > > > For the record, the GSoC code and the review discussion around it > > are found at > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5224 > > and in the two links to appspot.com at the top. > >

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Jean, > >> For the record, the GSoC code and the review discussion around it >> are found at >> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5224 >> and in the two links to appspot.com at the top. > > Thanks for that. > > I've looked through, and I can't see where p

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Le 09/08/2022 à 20:26, Kieren MacMillan a écrit : Hi Jean, For the record, the GSoC code and the review discussion around it are found at https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5224 and in the two links to appspot.com at the top. Thanks for that. I've looked through, and I can't see wh

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Jean, > For the record, the GSoC code and the review discussion around it > are found at > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5224 > and in the two links to appspot.com at the top. Thanks for that. I've looked through, and I can't see where polychords are even considered. Maybe I

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Le 09/08/2022 à 17:44, Kieren MacMillan a écrit : Hi Carl! Do you remember off-hand how polychords were handled in the GSoC code? What was the syntax? Could it handle more than two in the stack? etc. For the record, the GSoC code and the review discussion around it are found at https://gitla

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Carl! Do you remember off-hand how polychords were handled in the GSoC code? What was the syntax? Could it handle more than two in the stack? etc. Thanks, Kieren. > On Aug 9, 2022, at 11:14 AM, Kieren MacMillan > wrote: > > Hi Valentin, > >> In my opinion the main issue here is that the c

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Valentin, > In my opinion the main issue here is that the chord naming strategy > of first transforming theoretical respesentation of a chord into > a bunch of notes to then have some function try to make sense > of that and turn in again into a theoretical representation of a chord > is absolu

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Kieren, What's the current best snippet for rendering polychords? I know the GSoC chord stuff is still in air traffic control, but the snippet found at definitely doesn't work, and is likely far from optimal given

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi David, >> Me, too, I guess…? At least in Frescobaldi, it didn't work at all [!!]. > Running the given file through convert-ly changes the respective lines > in the example code (and bumps the version to 2.20.0 I think). Indeed — no problem from the command line. I'll file a bug-report with Fre

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi all, > >>> convert-ly exists. >> I actually thought I had tried this. Obviously I was too stupid to >> do it correctly. > > Me, too, I guess…? At least in Frescobaldi, it didn't work at all [!!]. Running the given file through convert-ly changes the respective lines

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Valentin, > Suppose we had a different way of specifying chords not as a bunch of notes, > but in a representation that preserves the theoretical meaning of such a > chord. The GSoC work was working towards exactly that. > This way we could have a transposable syntax to say e.g. des|c to sp

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi all, >> convert-ly exists. > I actually thought I had tried this. Obviously I was too stupid to do it > correctly. Me, too, I guess…? At least in Frescobaldi, it didn't work at all [!!]. Kieren

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Lukas, This snippet basically works by defining an Exception for each single Polychord structure you’re going to use. This is not even done in a systematic way, so you could easily add other Exceptions along the way. In my opinion the main issue here is that the chord naming strategy of firs

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

The culprit seems to be the added support for power chords: In 2.18.2, c1:5 generated a c major chord; now it only generates a power chord fifth. My guess would be that Valentin V.'s chord name cleanup in 78225bc1b386e12dc was the point when this changed. convert-ly exists. I actually though

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Lukas-Fabian Moser writes: > Hi Kieren, > > What's the current best snippet for rendering polychords? I know the GSoC > chord stuff is still in air traffic control, but the snippet found at > > definitely doesn't wo

Re: polychords: what's the current state-of-the-art?

Hi Kieren, What's the current best snippet for rendering polychords? I know the GSoC chord stuff is still in air traffic control, but the snippet found at definitely doesn't work, and is likely far from optimal given

Re: Choose paper size and layout with command line options?

Le 07/08/2022 à 22:51, M Sun a écrit : Hi all, I’m writing a sheet targeting two different paper sizes, with some layout adjustments. My goal is to be able to specify (maybe indirectly) the paper size in command line, without changing the lilypond file itself. My initial set up was this:

Re: Choose paper size and layout with command line options?

Thanks Knute. The problem is not only the paper size, but also this part: #(set-global-staff-size 18) \paper { top-margin = 0 bottom-margin = 0 left-margin = 5 right-margin = 0 } I need to enable these with the "kobo" size, but not in us-letter. On Sun, Aug 7, 2022 at 8:12