Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-29 Thread Hans Aberg
On 29 Feb 2008, at 14:53, Rune Zedeler wrote: I have added a snippet that sets the beam grouping automatically. Needs loads of cleanup, but works. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=395 Two possible extensions: One might want (if called for) to have subbeaming, as in the what gets wh

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-29 Thread Rune Zedeler
I have added a snippet that sets the beam grouping automatically. Needs loads of cleanup, but works. http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=395 -Rune ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Kurt Kroon
On 2008/02/28 1:30 AM, "Mats Bengtsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kurt Kroon wrote: >> \version "2.10.33" >> #(define (compound-time grob one two three num) >> (interpret-markup >>(ly:grob-layout grob) >>'(((baseline-skip . 2) >> (word-space . 2) >> (font-family . number)))

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Hans Aberg
On 28 Feb 2008, at 23:23, Joseph Wakeling wrote: I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a generally-set preference, along the lines of "\set Staff.timeSignature #'style = note" (that's pseudo code, obviously:-), and also how complex the resulting note could be: for example, i

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Joseph Wakeling
Hans Aberg wrote: > On 28 Feb 2008, at 17:32, Joseph Wakeling wrote: > >> I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a >> generally-set preference, along the lines of "\set Staff.timeSignature >> #'style = note" (that's pseudo code, obviously:-), and also how complex >> the resulting n

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Hans Aberg
On 28 Feb 2008, at 17:32, Joseph Wakeling wrote: I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a generally-set preference, along the lines of "\set Staff.timeSignature #'style = note" (that's pseudo code, obviously:-), and also how complex the resulting note could be: for example, ima

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Joseph Wakeling
Mats Bengtsson wrote: > Search for "time signature note" in the mailing list archives, and you will > find, for example > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2006-04/msg00123.html That's cool. I was wondering more if it was possible for that to be a generally-set preference, along the

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Mats Bengtsson
Search for "time signature note" in the mailing list archives, and you will find, for example http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2006-04/msg00123.html /Mats Joseph Wakeling wrote: Kurt Kroon wrote: (I'm not sure if one can extend this last one in LilyPond to more complex exam

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Joseph Wakeling
Kurt Kroon wrote: >> (I'm not sure if one can extend this last one in LilyPond to more complex >> examples, like when the numerator is an additive expression, and the >> denominator is a single digit, e.g. (3+2+3)/8.) > > I was mistaken ... it *is* possible to extend the syntax (which seems > comp

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Valentin Villenave
2008/2/28 Mats Bengtsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Try: > #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 8 8 8) 3 8) > #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end 1 8 8 8) 5 8) > \set Staff.beatGrouping = #'(3 2 3) LOL -- I hadn't seen your answer, Mats, sorry. > On the other hand, don't hesitate in general t

Re: Additive time signatures (was: GDP ... complex meters)

2008-02-28 Thread Valentin Villenave
2008/2/28 Kurt Kroon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I was mistaken ... it *is* possible to extend the syntax (which seems > completely reasonable, in retrospect). I've borrowed (and stretched) the > compound-time-signature snippet as follows: Yes, everything is possible :) > It isn't quite right --

Re: Additive time signatures

2008-02-28 Thread Mats Bengtsson
Kurt Kroon wrote: (I'm not sure if one can extend this last one in LilyPond to more complex examples, like when the numerator is an additive expression, and the denominator is a single digit, e.g. (3+2+3)/8.) I was mistaken ... it *is* possible to extend the syntax (which seems completel