Hello Saul,
> The deprecated
> properties provide a way for convert-ly to modify code so it still compiles
> without requiring automatic conversions applied to potentially arbitrary
> Scheme code.
The deprecated syntax is in fact automatically converted. I just don’t get how
adding a new propert
On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 2:01 AM Saul Tobin wrote:
>>
>> Instead of the old interface use this deprecated new interface,
>> instead of just: Use the same interface, but you will need to add a type
>> conversion.
>
>
> The deprecated properties aren't intended for end users to write in their
> code.
>
> Instead of the old interface use this deprecated new interface,
> instead of just: Use the same interface, but you will need to add a type
> conversion.
The deprecated properties aren't intended for end users to write in their
code. New human written code should use the non-deprecated names a
On Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 1:20 AM Valentin Petzel wrote:
>
> Hello Saul,
>
> > I don't want to speak for Dan, but I believe the objective is to get user
> > code moved over to actually using exact rationals rather than moments for
> > these properties, not just to allow the use of exact rationals in
Hello Saul,
> I don't want to speak for Dan, but I believe the objective is to get user
> code moved over to actually using exact rationals rather than moments for
> these properties, not just to allow the use of exact rationals in addition
> to moments.
This is not what I talked about. My point
I don't want to speak for Dan, but I believe the objective is to get user
code moved over to actually using exact rationals rather than moments for
these properties, not just to allow the use of exact rationals in addition
to moments.
It's worth pointing out that there were extended discussions on
Hello Paolo,
> Why has forward compatibility not been ensured for this function?
The relevant merge request is this one:
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/merge_requests/2546
As you can see this one also introduces a compatibilty property
`proportionalNotationDurationAsMoment` and a conve
LilyPond has never guaranteed backward compatibility of its API between
versions, except for minor versions of the same stable release. It's
usually the case that between any given two versions only a small subset of
code requires changes, but you should always assume that when upgrading to
a new L
Thanks Valentin, I will definitely use it in my code.
But this API change leaves me a bit perplexed. It's the first one I've
encountered since LilyPond 2.19.84! For this reason I am crossposting
this message with the devel mailing list.
Why has forward compatibility not been ensured for this functi
We are happy to announce the release of LilyPond 2.25.24. This is
termed a development release, but these are usually reliable for
testing new features and recent bug fixes. However, if you require
stability, we recommend using version 2.24.4, the current stable
release.
Please refer to the Install
Hello Paolo,
> Is there a way to make this snippet compatible with all LilyPond
> versions starting from 2.19.84?
You could do something like this
```
requireVersion =
#(define-scheme-function (version then else)
(string? scheme? scheme?)
(define (list< x y)
(if (null? x)
#f
Hello everyone,
I've noticed that starting from LilyPond version 2.25.23, this snippet
produces the following warning:
{
\set Score.proportionalNotationDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 32)
c' c' c'
}
warning: the property 'proportionalNotationDuration' must be of type
'non-negative exact rational o
On Sat, 2025-02-08 at 12:17 +0100, Valentin Petzel wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> > How can I reposition the word "Fine" at the end of a piece? In the
> > particular case I want to alter, I wish "Fine" to appear above the
> > staff, not below it.
>
> try this:
>
> ```
> {
> 1
> \override Score
Hello Raphael,
> I am on Xubuntu 24.04. Which Cairo package am I missing?
I suppose you are using the system package for Lilypond? The cairo backend is
still experimental, so the Debian maintainers might have configured the build
to not use cairo. Try using the binary releases from the Lily
Hello David,
> How can I reposition the word "Fine" at the end of a piece? In the
> particular case I want to alter, I wish "Fine" to appear above the
> staff, not below it.
try this:
```
{
1
\override Score.JumpScript.direction = #UP
\fine
1
}
```
Cheers,
Valentin
signature.asc
Descr
How can I reposition the word "Fine" at the end of a piece? In the
particular case I want to alter, I wish "Fine" to appear above the
staff, not below it.
David
Oops, I missed to CC my first response to the list.
There has already been another thread about that question:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2023-11/msg00229.html
Some people with much more knowledge have answered there.
Cheers,
Klaus
Am 08.02.2025 um 10:52 schrieb K. Blum
Hi William,
Am 08.02.2025 um 10:42 schrieb lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org:
If you didn't already, can you try adding `-dbackend=cairo` before the
filename? Like this
lilypond -dbackend=cairo file.ly
that's what OLy already does when calling the LilyPond executable. It leads to
the error messa
On 07/02/2025 18:21, Timothy Lanfear wrote:
On 07/02/2025 16:40, David Wright wrote:
You can add the lyrics to the Staff instead of each voice. You just
have to add _ to each set of lyrics so that there's a syllable for
every moment in the staff, ie both voices.
Following on from David's ti
19 matches
Mail list logo
