Hi Jay,
> Some minor changes would be needed if a break is needed
> mid-measure (something like \lineBreakAt 27 3/4).
Yes. As I understand it, some less minor changes would be needed for that, too:
currently (AFAIK), Lily won’t break mid-measure without an explicit \bar “”.
> I think I'd still
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 4:08 PM, Kieren MacMillan
wrote:
> I think the “perfect” break-engraver would admit coding like the following
> (pseudocode; all numbers in measures):
>
> \lineBreakAt 27
> \lineBreaksAt (12 28 34 48)
> \noLineBreaks (27-30)
> \lineBreaksForbidAt 28
> \
Further to this thread…
> I just think it — or something like it — should be vetted and [the
> improved/approved version] included with the regular distro.
I think the “perfect” break-engraver would admit coding like the following
(pseudocode; all numbers in measures):
\lineBreakAt 27
Hi David,
> A content-independent line- and page-breaking system is easy.
> The content is what makes it complicated…
Ah, the semantics cop is on the beat. ;)
Let me put it another way: Using David’s engraver (which he graciously sent me
off-list), I am happily adding manual breaks EXTERNAL TO
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi all,
>
>> How would it behave if \draftSkip were, instead of being changed,
> tagged, and you ran lilypond with exclude-tag #draft? (I can't
> remember the syntax off the top of my head, but I think that's
> reasonably close.)
>
> It would be fine… but it’s still a b
Hi all,
> How would it behave if \draftSkip were, instead of being changed, tagged, and
> you ran lilypond with exclude-tag #draft? (I can't remember the syntax off
> the top of my head, but I think that's reasonably close.)
It would be fine… but it’s still a band-aid (um, Band-Aid™) solution.
How would it behave if \draftSkip were, instead of being changed, tagged, and
you ran lilypond with exclude-tag #draft? (I can't remember the syntax off the
top of my head, but I think that's reasonably close.)
On Dec 27, 2013, at 1:38 AM, "Keith OHara" wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 18:44:56
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 18:44:56 -0800, Kieren MacMillan
wrote:
I look forward to stress-testing this in the very near future.
One missing feature is that \mergeSkips doesn't look inside {...} to see if
they are empty. I often set breaks for proofreading and then remove them by
defining them
Hi Keith,
(Sorry for the delay in responding: ice storm + holidays = crazy times.)
YES! This works wonderfully.
I look forward to stress-testing this in the very near future.
Thank you,
Kieren.
On Dec 22, 2013, at 4:35 PM, Keith OHara wrote:
> Let's try it out, then, using music functions.
_
Kieren MacMillan sympatico.ca> writes:
> > >> I don't understand why, if you want a four measure rest you would> >>
write 2+2. For the vast majority of cases, if there are 48 bars> >> between
two rehearsal marks I'm happy to see |=48=| between them.> >> So, why write
anything but R1*48 in the pa
Kieren MacMillan sympatico.ca> writes:
> You can write R1*48 in the *part*, but if a shared variable (say, a
global with other changes in it) is simultaneous-ed with it, the R1*48 gets
broken by Lilypond. This is what I'm trying to avoid.
>
Let's try it out, then, using music functions. I th
Hi David,
> >> I don't understand why, if you want a four measure rest you would
> >> write 2+2. For the vast majority of cases, if there are 48 bars
> >> between two rehearsal marks I'm happy to see |=48=| between them.
> >> So, why write anything but R1*48 in the part in question?
You can write
That could be a useful feature but should not me the default. Perhaps an
override such as
\override MultimeasureRest #'condense-all = ##t
would be helpful. That way the default would still be the intuitive way (2+2
gives two separate groups) whereas the other is still an option for those who
w
> I think one of the things that bothers me about this thread is that
> I don't understand why, if you want a four measure rest you would
> write 2+2. For the vast majority of cases, if there are 48 bars
> between two rehearsal marks I'm happy to see |=48=| between them.
> So, why write anything
- Original Message -
From: "Werner LEMBERG"
To: bobr...@centrum.is
Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:53:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Feature Request] \compressFullBarRests improvement(s)
> I would like to echo Simon's concern as well. Furthermore,
> I would like to echo Simon's concern as well. Furthermore, I don't
> see why:
>
> R1*2 R1*2
>
> ...producing two multimeasure rests of two measures duration is
> troublesome.
It is a fundamental problem of separating contents from layout. In
many cases it is of great importance to structure
- Original Message -
From: "Simon Bailey"
To: "Werner LEMBERG"
Cc: jamshar...@gmail.com, lilypond-user@gnu.org
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2013 9:07:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Feature Request] \compressFullBarRests improvement(s)
On 22 Dec 2013, at 06:56, Werner LEMBE
>> I also support this request. Another reason is that in many parts
>> of percussion instruments, say, there is `tacet' for a very long
>> time, e.g. from rehearsal number 20 to 76. A potential new
>> implementation of \compressFullBarRests (or a variant as suggested
>> by David K.) should allo
On Sunday, December 22, 2013 5:07:11 PM HKT, Simon Bailey wrote:
I also support this request. Another reason is that in many parts of
percussion instruments, say, there is `tacet' for a very long time,
e.g. from rehearsal number 20 to 76. A potential new implementation
of \compressFullBarRests
On 22 Dec 2013, at 06:56, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> I also support this request. Another reason is that in many parts of
> percussion instruments, say, there is `tacet' for a very long time,
> e.g. from rehearsal number 20 to 76. A potential new implementation
> of \compressFullBarRests (or a va
>> Here’s my request: I would love it if \compressFullBarRests actually did
>> what it says it does… ;)
>
> FWIW, I agree with Kieren. If I saw a part with some multimeasure
> rests broken for no obvious reason, e.g.
>
> { \compressFullBarRests \mark \default R1*2 R1*2 \mark \default R1*2 }
>
>
I agree entirely with James that the input looks good as is. Only
tangentially related, does the placement of the first mark bother anyone
else? I feel like it would look better after rather than over the clef.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 9:42 PM, James Harkins wrote:
> James Harkins gmail.com> wr
James Harkins gmail.com> writes:
> FWIW, I agree with Kieren. If I saw a part with some multimeasure rests
> broken for no obvious reason, e.g.
>
> { \compressFullBarRests \mark \default R1*2 R1*2 \mark \default R1*2 }
>
> I would think the publisher was insane or incompetent. I'm surprised thi
Kieren MacMillan sympatico.ca> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Consider this snippet:
>
> \version "2.17.97"
>
> theMusic = {
> \compressFullBarRests
> R1*2
> R1*2
> }
>
> \score {
> \theMusic
> }
>
> Here’s my request: I would love it if \compressFullBarRests actually did
what it says it d
Hi David,
> "split points" would require a different signaling/wait framework.
While I appreciate the ingenuity here… ;)
Consider if this is how auto-beaming were implemented — yuck.
Instead, we have \noBeam to break any automatic beam.
Why not do the same here?
i.e., Make \compressFullBarRest
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> Well, you would not count. Instead you'd say something like
>>
>> \R-until \atMark 8
>> or
>> \R-until \atmeasure 80
>
> Ah! I could see that being a *very* elegant solution for that problem.
>
> However, if one suddenly added, post-hoc, a “split point”
Hi David,
> Well, you would not count. Instead you'd say something like
>
> \R-until \atMark 8
> or
> \R-until \atmeasure 80
Ah! I could see that being a *very* elegant solution for that problem.
However, if one suddenly added, post-hoc, a “split point” in the [shared]
global music, would it
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> I have quite a few orchestra parts where multimeasure rest streaks of
>> several lengths are _not_ conflated. Basically, each such rest stands
>> for a recognizable unit.
>
> I’ll look at Gould to see what her recommendations are.
>
> In any case, whethe
I agree that in that case it should be fully compressed, but not in the
first example.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Kieren MacMillan <
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> > Two separate ones. As an orchestral performer those breaks are often
> used to signify the beginnings
Hi David,
> I have quite a few orchestra parts where multimeasure rest streaks of
> several lengths are _not_ conflated. Basically, each such rest stands
> for a recognizable unit.
I’ll look at Gould to see what her recommendations are.
In any case, whether or not a best practice is known, the
Hi Alex,
> Two separate ones. As an orchestral performer those breaks are often used to
> signify the beginnings of sections to make counting easier, so if I'm resting
> and there are 8 bars of one theme followed by 8 of another, I find it much
> easier to keep my place when it's 8 and 8 instea
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Having just engraved nearly 25 minutes of music resulting in 57
> different individual parts, I can tell you that this issue inspired
> quite a bit of reduced efficiency, increased hackery, and even some
> loud swearing. =)
>
> Thoughts?
I have quite a few orchestra p
Two separate ones. As an orchestral performer those breaks are often used
to signify the beginnings of sections to make counting easier, so if I'm
resting and there are 8 bars of one theme followed by 8 of another, I find
it much easier to keep my place when it's 8 and 8 instead of 16.
Alex
On S
Hi Alex,
> I don't see what's wrong with the output, that's exactly what I would expect
> it to be.
Does your output show a single four-measure MMR (which I would both want and
expect it to be), or two two-measure MMRs (which is undesirable, primarily
because it's distracting to the performer)
I don't see what's wrong with the output, that's exactly what I would
expect it to be.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Kieren MacMillan <
kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Consider this snippet:
>
> \version "2.17.97"
>
> theMusic = {
> \compressFullBarRests
> R1*2
>
35 matches
Mail list logo
