> Fortunately, it was much easier than I feared it might be.
>
> Here's a revised version.
Now all examples look fine. Halleluja :-)
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-use
On 10/27/16 1:49 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>>
>>Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest dot should be
>>above the ledger line, not below. Or am I missing something?
>
>Oh, yes. I missed those being low on my low-resolution monitor.
>
>Back to the drawing board on that part of the
On 10/27/16 1:21 PM, "werner.lemb...@gmx.de on behalf of Werner LEMBERG"
wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
>> algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I
>> understand it.
>
>Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest d
[Note that currently the descriptions are sometimes incorrect in the
tests.]
> Anyway, I've run through all the tests, and I think that the default
> algorithm works exactly according to the Powell algorithm, as I
> understand it.
Mhmm, 22b, and 24b are not correct IMHO: The lowest dot should b
Best,
Abraham
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Augmentation-dot-positioning-tp194462p195781.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
OK, I got my preferred algorithm working right as the default positioning
algorithm now.
The algorithm puts dots for notes in spaces in the same space, and then
tries to put dots for notes on lines in adjacent spaces, working its way
out until it finds a space or exceeds chords-dot-limit staff pos
On 10/26/16 3:28 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>Su why is a symbol needed? Symbols always require some secret lookup
>mechanism. Why not just use a list here? When the list needs to be
>calculated, it can be a callback, right?
That was my hope, but I couldn't make it work.
The reason I coul
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 10/25/16 8:57 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>>Hi Carl,
>>Firstly, thanks for your work on this!
>>At a quick glance, the only two situations that need dots-limit =2 are
>>#11 and #23.
>
> Yes, those were my two cases as well.
>
>>A side issue:
>>An idea I've just had: woul
On 10/25/16 8:57 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>Hi Carl,
>Firstly, thanks for your work on this!
>At a quick glance, the only two situations that need dots-limit =2 are
>#11 and #23.
Yes, those were my two cases as well.
>A side issue:
>An idea I've just had: would it be useful to have a more flexi
Thanks, Carl!
> At a quick glance, the only two situations that need dots-limit =2
> are #11 and #23.
Seconded. I also think that #13 also looks better with value 2 – the
nearer the number of dots to the number of noteheads, the better.
What about #24/2? Why is the lowest dot below the a's l
On 25 Oct 2016 3:36 p.m., "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> At any rate, I have some results from Chris's test file. I have adjusted
> the text to contain my assessment of the results. Please let me know if
> you disagree with any of my assessments.
>
> chord-dots-limit = 1 is better in most circ
On 9/19/16 7:50 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>I agree with all of these points, and am working on an improved algorithm.
>
>Once I get the algorithm solidified, I know how to implement it.
>
>But I haven't got the algorithm solidified yet.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Carl
OK, I have now made a change (not y
On 9/19/16 2:53 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>Looking at the results, I suspect the positioning algorithm should try to
>place dots on the space-notes first, then work the line-notes around them.
>
>
>Additionally, chord-dots-limit might be used to limit how far away the
>dots can be 'shifted' durin
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 09:38 Chris Yate wrote:
> On 9/18/16 4:00 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>>> >Chris,
>>> >
>>> >Here's a patch. But as Werner pointed out, it's not quite done yet. I
>>> >think I need to improve the badness scoring in order to get better
>>> >configurations from which to rem
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 02:31 Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 9/18/16 4:00 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
> >Chris,
> >
> >Here's a patch. But as Werner pointed out, it's not quite done yet. I
> >think I need to improve the badness scoring in order to get better
> >configurations from which to remove exc
On 9/18/16 4:00 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>Chris,
>
>Here's a patch. But as Werner pointed out, it's not quite done yet. I
>think I need to improve the badness scoring in order to get better
>configurations from which to remove excess dots.
There are two comments in the code that are wrong.
On 9/18/16 10:37 AM, "werner.lemb...@gmx.de on behalf of Werner LEMBERG"
wrote:
>
>This looks very good, but there are two glitches, namely 13b and 23b,
>which can't be right. 23c looks wrong, too.
Clearly 23 is wrong. I need to investigate further. I'll submit my work
again when I have it fi
On 9/18/16 11:09 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>Hi Carl, thanks! I'll take a look later today. Would you be happy to send
>me a patch for the current source code HEAD? (Or just the modified file).
>I was looking at the current code on Friday to try and understand it, so
>it would be good to see what
On 18 Sep 2016 17:37, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote:
>
>
> > OK, I have rewritten the code for augmentation dot positioning.
>
> Great, and thanks a lot!
>
> > Personally, I like the results of this code better than the Gould
> > recommendations. I would use t
> OK, I have rewritten the code for augmentation dot positioning.
Great, and thanks a lot!
> Personally, I like the results of this code better than the Gould
> recommendations. I would use this code, and make the default value
> of chord-dots-limit be 1.
I agree.
> I'm
On 9/15/16 5:17 PM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>Oh yeah, these examples are a case in point! The first seems to suggest
>dots should stay within the area of the chord, while the second suggests
>it's ok to have dots extending the chord as long as they're balanced
>vertically.
The first follows her ru
Oh yeah, these examples are a case in point! The first seems to suggest
dots should stay within the area of the chord, while the second suggests
it's ok to have dots extending the chord as long as they're balanced
vertically.
Fundamentally the only difference between these situations is the size o
On 9/15/16 4:15 PM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>Please note I'm working without her examples, but I disagree about
>[Lilypond's interpretation of] Gould's rules, because they appear to be
>in contradiction with **every piece of published music I've ever seen**.
>Given just her text, I think she has
On 09/15/2016 12:41 PM, Chris Yate wrote:
I think the trouble with Gould's rules is that they're inconsistent,
or could at least be interpreted in such a way. She says to use dots
only on the spaces occupied by the chord, and yet says you MAY need to
put a dot a space or more away from the ch
On 15 Sep 2016 22:45, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/16 10:41 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:>
> >
> >I think the trouble with Gould's rules is that they're inconsistent, or
> >could at least be interpreted in such a way. She says to use dots only
> >on the spaces occupied by the chord, and yet sa
On 9/15/16 10:41 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 17:33 Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>
>
>I note that sib1.png is exactly the same chord as in the Gould scan. And
>it has two less dots than Gould shows. So it's not consistent with Gould.
>
>
>
>
>I'm not quite sure what she's showing
On 9/15/16 8:01 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 14:36 Chris Yate wrote:
>
>
>> According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting.
>
>
>
>
>
>OK. On reflection, perhaps I can see your reasoning, although I disagree
>that the current situation reliably produc
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 17:33 Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> I note that sib1.png is exactly the same chord as in the Gould scan. And
> it has two less dots than Gould shows. So it's not consistent with Gould.
>
I'm not quite sure what she's showing in that example you scanned, but I
thought it was a
On 9/15/16 10:11 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>For the sake of argument, here's what Sibelius does in similar
>circumstances, and which I think is right, and actually within the spirit
>of Gould's coments.
I note that sib1.png is exactly the same chord as in the Gould scan. And
it has two less dot
For the sake of argument, here's what Sibelius does in similar
circumstances, and which I think is right, and actually within the spirit
of Gould's coments.
Chris
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 16:37 Carl Sorensen wrote:That
certainly is strange. I wonder why it drops to four dots instead of
> 5, given that there are 5 notes in the cluster. And the G space dot would
> only be two staff positions away from the E.
>
> I'm looking into the code now. I'll see if I
On 9/15/16 8:35 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>Thanks -- but that example is about balancing the dots around a chord,
>which I believe we're not disagreed about. (This scanned example is
>related her statement about not placing the dots in one direction).
I believe the first chord \relative c'{ 4.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 15:22 Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>
> On 9/15/16 7:36 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
> >Carl, the key is the last bit of Gould's text as quoted by Brian above:
> >"When a dot is forced to be two or more stave-spaces from the chord, its
> >function becomes less relevant. In such case
On 9/15/16 7:36 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>Carl, the key is the last bit of Gould's text as quoted by Brian above:
>"When a dot is forced to be two or more stave-spaces from the chord, its
>function becomes less relevant. In such cases, use only as many dots as
>cover the number of stave-spaces t
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 at 14:36 Chris Yate wrote:
> > According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting.
>
OK. On reflection, perhaps I can see your reasoning, although I disagree
that the current situation reliably produces the notation one would expect.
And it's insufficientl
On 9/13/16 11:53 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>Thanks Werner. That's potentially a useful workaround. But the default
>behaviour is obviously broken. There's no way I should see a dot placed
>on the space above or below a note on a space -- obviously notes on a
>line are a different matter. As fa
On 9/14/16 9:05 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
>
>
>
>Attached with some extra cases I'd forgotten about (the inverted versions
>of the final 6.
According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting.
Case 1: Gould says that the dot in the A space is correct. The only dots
she remove
On 15 Sep 2016 14:27, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/14/16 9:05 AM, "Chris Yate" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >Attached with some extra cases I'd forgotten about (the inverted versions
> >of the final 6.
>
> According to Gould, I believe that dots limit 3 is the correct setting.
>
> Case 1: Gould sa
> Attached with some extra cases I'd forgotten about (the inverted
> versions of the final 6.
Looks good, thanks. Please post this to the bug list so that a
bugmeister can create an issue – since the old issue was tagged as
fixed, a new one will be created.
Werner
_
>>> Did you intentionally mark those examples with unnecessary dots as
>>> "OK", rather than "FAIL"?
Yes.
>>> In my opinion, they should probably be failure cases.
I don't think so. IMHO, the default should be value 0; if you
increase the value, more dots do appear, so it's not a failure if th
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 15:20 Chris Yate wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 15:18 Chris Yate wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 14:55 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > Here's some test cases. I doubt this is the best place to post them
>>> > (bugs list?) but they're relevant to the conversation.
>
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 15:18 Chris Yate wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 14:55 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
>>
>> > Here's some test cases. I doubt this is the best place to post them
>> > (bugs list?) but they're relevant to the conversation.
>>
>> Thanks! However, your PDF file was not in sync with
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 14:55 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > Here's some test cases. I doubt this is the best place to post them
> > (bugs list?) but they're relevant to the conversation.
>
> Thanks! However, your PDF file was not in sync with the input file;
> I've taken the opportunity to clean up
2016-09-14 14:24 GMT+02:00 Chris Yate :
> Here's some test cases. I doubt this is the best place to post them (bugs
> list?) but they're relevant to the conversation.
I may be wrong, but I would say that examples "Extension above 4-note
line-top cluster with a 3rd" (page 6, top group) with dot lim
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 at 11:58 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> >> However, you have found a bug I think, since it doesn't seem to
> >> work correctly for your case, eliminating dots on the wrong side of
> >> the chord.
> >
> > Also, it’s clearly wrong to have dots in two ‘columns’. They look
> > like dou
>> However, you have found a bug I think, since it doesn't seem to
>> work correctly for your case, eliminating dots on the wrong side of
>> the chord.
>
> Also, it’s clearly wrong to have dots in two ‘columns’. They look
> like double-dotted notes.
Please have a closer look! The lower chords i
On 13.09.2016 07:24, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
The issue occurs when writing closely spaced chords with an
augmentation dot in the rhythm. Dots are placed only on spaces
(which we should expect), but in certain very easy to reproduce
conditions, the dot appears in an unexpected place.
Cf. `regress
On 14 Sep 2016 04:26, "Brian Barker" wrote:
>
> At 23:50 13/09/2016 +, Chris Yate wrote:
>>
>> Could someone that owns a copy of Gould chip in with a "best practice"
recommendation?
>
>
> I've not been following this thread in detail, so I'm not sure if this is
what you need. This from pages 5
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 at 19:55 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> It's issue 3179
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3179/
>
> and commit dfff5d3d1a1001f65d1f7183837f56ccd64fb15a
>
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/lilypond.git/commit/?id=dfff5d3d1a1001f65d1f7183837f56ccd64fb15a
>
> > Th
>> > The issue occurs when writing closely spaced chords with an
>> > augmentation dot in the rhythm. Dots are placed only on spaces
>> > (which we should expect), but in certain very easy to reproduce
>> > conditions, the dot appears in an unexpected place.
>>
>> Cf. `regression/chord-dots.ly'; th
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 at 18:53 Chris Yate wrote:
>
>> However, you have found a bug I think, since it doesn't seem to work
>> correctly for your case, eliminating dots on the wrong side of the
>> chord
>>
>
This may be related (or fixed by?)
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/2201/
__
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 at 06:24 Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> > The issue occurs when writing closely spaced chords with an
> > augmentation dot in the rhythm. Dots are placed only on spaces
> > (which we should expect), but in certain very easy to reproduce
> > conditions, the dot appears in an unexpec
> The issue occurs when writing closely spaced chords with an
> augmentation dot in the rhythm. Dots are placed only on spaces
> (which we should expect), but in certain very easy to reproduce
> conditions, the dot appears in an unexpected place.
Cf. `regression/chord-dots.ly'; this is controlled
Hi all,
I have only rarely typeset piano music in the past, which is probably why I
haven't come across this issue before.
The issue occurs when writing closely spaced chords with an augmentation
dot in the rhythm. Dots are placed only on spaces (which we should expect),
but in certain very easy
54 matches
Mail list logo
