Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-09-16 22:21 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>>>
And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because someone for
some reason finds it less challenging to implement functionality tha
2017-09-16 22:21 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>>
>>> And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because someone for
>>> some reason finds it less challenging to implement functionality than
>>> inventing examples using i
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>
>> And, uh, it is lacking regtests and documentation. Because someone for
>> some reason finds it less challenging to implement functionality than
>> inventing examples using it...
>
> Absolutely no idea which person you may ha
2017-09-16 21:49 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like
>>> below are now possible:
>>>
>>> xxx = c4
>>> { \xxx -- }
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> and
>
>>> #{ $m -. #}
>>
>> Yes. #m -.
David Kastrup writes:
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like
>> below are now possible:
>>
>> xxx = c4
>> { \xxx -- }
>
> Yes.
>
>> and
>> #{ $m -. #}
>
> Yes. #m -. should be fine as well.
>>
>> Which is a big, big goody!
>
>
Thomas Morley writes:
> If I understand correctly, with this patch [issue 5581] things like
> below are now possible:
>
> xxx = c4
> { \xxx -- }
Yes.
> and
>
> foo =
> #(define-music-function (mus)(ly:music?)
> (music-map
> (lambda (m)
> (if (music-is-of-type? m 'note-event)
>
2017-09-16 13:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> Other 5181-topic:
>> In your patch description you wrote about the problem with
>> c-\single \dynamicUp \f
>>
>> Here I can't follow, compiling this with 2.18.2 and current master
>> returns no noticeable difference for me, ev
David Kastrup writes:
> Noeck writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics
>>> or multimeasure rest. Something like that.
>>
>> :)
>>
>>> Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio
>>> or articulation or beam or beam
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-09-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>
Frankly, what does it even _mean_ to use a
particular righthand finger and string for a non-existing note?
>>>
>>> Well, that hold as well for:
>>> { -1 -- d' }
>>> but this one works.
>>
>> Th
2017-09-15 1:11 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>>> Frankly, what does it even _mean_ to use a
>>> particular righthand finger and string for a non-existing note?
>>
>> Well, that hold as well for:
>> { -1 -- d' }
>> but this one works.
>
> That's because historically you could
Thomas Morley writes:
> Other 5181-topic:
> In your patch description you wrote about the problem with
> c-\single \dynamicUp \f
>
> Here I can't follow, compiling this with 2.18.2 and current master
> returns no noticeable difference for me, even using
> display(Lily)Music.
> May be I overlooked
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2017-09-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> I'd go for post-event(s)
>>> Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below
>>
>> But every one gets its own warning, so each warning is only for one.
>
> Well, then I'd expect two wa
2017-09-15 0:25 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> I'd go for post-event(s)
>> Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below
>
> But every one gets its own warning, so each warning is only for one.
Well, then I'd expect two warnings for:
{ \fermata -- d' }
beca
David,
Understood. Thank you.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 1:52 PM
To: Mark Stephen Mrotek
Cc: 'Gianmaria Lari' ; 'lilypond-user'
Subject: Re: \mark and slur
"Mark Stephen Mrotek&q
Thomas Morley writes:
> I'd go for post-event(s)
> Plural, because there may be more than one. See example below
But every one gets its own warning, so each warning is only for one.
> But
> { -\3 -\rightHandFinger #2 d'4 }
> issues the warning, the image doesn't contain the post-events, though.
Hi David,
I know played a little with your fix issue 5181
On current topic:
2017-09-14 15:57 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> David Kastrup writes:
> Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
> message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would
>
> sll.ly:4:13: warni
> From: Noeck
> Hi,
>
> > warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
>
> I would understand it best if the warning said any of:
>
> Cannot attach slur to preceding expression
> Slur is not attached to note or chord
> Cannot attach slur to note or chord
> No note or chord before this slur to
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> David Kastrup [mailto:d...@gnu.org] wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Re: \mark and slur
>>
>> "Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
>>
>>> Try
>>>
>>> c4 c c d
>>>
>>>(c4^\marku
Noeck writes:
> Hi,
>
>> Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics
>> or multimeasure rest. Something like that.
>
> :)
>
>> Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio
>> or articulation or beam or beam forbid or bendafter or crescendo or
Hi,
> Note or chord or rest or skip or bass figure or cluster note or lyrics
> or multimeasure rest. Something like that.
:)
> Slur or phrasing slur or absolute dynamic or annote output or arpeggio
> or articulation or beam or beam forbid or bendafter or crescendo or
> decrescendo or episema or
k Stephen Mrotek
Cc: 'Gianmaria Lari' ; 'lilypond-user'
Subject: Re: \mark and slur
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> Try
>
> c4 c c d
>
>(c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c
Shrug. If you insist on that kind of organization you can try
\version "2
Noeck writes:
> Hi,
>
>> warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
>
> I would understand it best if the warning said any of:
>
> Cannot attach slur to preceding expression
> Slur is not attached to note or chord
> Cannot attach slur to note or chord
> No note or chord before this slur to
"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes:
> Try
>
> c4 c c d
>
>(c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c
Shrug. If you insist on that kind of organization you can try
\version "2.19.65"
\fixed c' {
c4 c c d
(\mark "X" c4) c c c
}
But it's really a delusion you are getting and becomes rather strained
once
Hi,
> warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
I would understand it best if the warning said any of:
Cannot attach slur to preceding expression
Slur is not attached to note or chord
Cannot attach slur to note or chord
No note or chord before this slur to attach it to (is that English?)
Gianmaria,
Try
c4 c c d
(c4^\markup {"X"}) c c c
Mark
From: lilypond-user [mailto:lilypond-user-bounces+carsonmark=ca.rr@gnu.org]
On Behalf Of Gianmaria Lari
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2017 2:14 AM
To: lilypond-user
Subject: \mark and slur
This compiles well
\vers
Rutger Hofman writes:
> On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Note: another component that may possibly be included in the warning
>> message for this input would be "SlurEvent". Would
>>
>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose SlurEvent
>> \mark "X"
>>
On 14-09-17 15:57, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
Rutger Hofman writes:
My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of
the note that directly precedes it.
That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.
Yes, I understand. But still, I f
David Kastrup writes:
> Rutger Hofman writes:
>
>> My preference would be to clearly explain that '(' is an attribute of
>> the note that directly precedes it.
>
> That's what the "loose post-event" bit is supposed to be about.
>
GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
Processing `sll.ly'
Parsing...
Rutger Hofman writes:
> But isn't the start time of this <> the start time of the c4 in the
> second line, so that <>( c4) is equivalent to c4(); which causes the
> warnings 'cannot end slur' for ')' and 'unterminated slur' for '('?
Yes and yes.
> My guess is that this insertion of <> makes thi
But isn't the start time of this <> the start time of the c4 in the
second line, so that <>( c4) is equivalent to c4(); which causes the
warnings 'cannot end slur' for ')' and 'unterminated slur' for '('?
My guess is that this insertion of <> makes things more complicated for
us, unenlightened u
David Kastrup wrote:
> People tend to ignore warnings
> anyway.
I personally ignore warnings only when I don't see them. And I normally
don't see them when they are in a long list of other information (maybe
written in small character etc. etc :))
Ciao, g.
_
Thank you Malte and Phil!
It works well and your suggestion make sense. I normally didn't pay much
attention to this thing, now I will.
Gianmaria
On 14 September 2017 at 11:27, Malte Meyn wrote:
>
>
> Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
>
>>c4 c c d
>>(c4) c c c
>>
>
> […]
>
Malte Meyn writes:
> Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage:
>>
>> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
>
> […]
>
>> Is that more helpful than previously?
>>
>> GNU LilyPond 2.19.80
>
> This looks nice :) Do I understand correctly that after 2
Malte Meyn writes:
> Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage:
>>
>> GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
>> Processing `sll.ly'
>> Parsing...
>> sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
>>\mark "X"
>> (c4)
Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage:
GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
[…]
Is that more helpful than previously?
GNU LilyPond 2.19.80
This looks nice :) Do I understand correctly that after 2.19.65 follows
2.21.0 in the master br
Am 14.09.2017 um 11:43 schrieb David Kastrup:
Incidentally, current master delivers the following verbiage:
GNU LilyPond 2.21.0
Processing `sll.ly'
Parsing...
sll.ly:4:13: warning: Adding <> for attaching loose post-event
\mark "X"
(c4) c c c
Interpreting music...
sll.ly:4:16:
Malte Meyn writes:
> Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
>>c4 c c d
>>(c4) c c c
>
> […]
>
>>c4 c c d
>>\mark "X" (c4) c c c
>
> The start of slur belongs to the d, not the c.
>
> Writing
> d (c)
> is possible and equivalent to
> d( c)
> but the latter more
It's not the position of the mark that is wrong - it's the slur. This applies
to a note and so must follow the note immediately. Move the ( to the end of
the previous line and all will be well.
--
Phil Holmes
- Original Message -
From: Gianmaria Lari
To: lilypond-user
Sent
Am 14.09.2017 um 11:14 schrieb Gianmaria Lari:
c4 c c d
(c4) c c c
[…]
c4 c c d
\mark "X" (c4) c c c
The start of slur belongs to the d, not the c.
Writing
d (c)
is possible and equivalent to
d( c)
but the latter more clearly says what’s going on.
You tried t
39 matches
Mail list logo
