Urs Liska wrote
> Did you read my email quoted below? I have the impression it wasn't
> delivered through the list (was it down yesterday?)
Ah, I hadn't seen your message or Kieren's that you were replying to.
Thanks, and sorry I missed it before. I now see where you're coming from on
this.
Ch
Am 31.10.2014 14:49, schrieb Paul Morris:
Urs Liska wrote
That sounds reasonable.
However, original breaks *are* part of the content so that's not a
mixture.
Hi Urs,
Well, I see where you're coming from, but I think we are understanding
"content" differently here.[1]
The original breaks are
Hi Urs,
> original breaks *are* part of the content so that's not a mixture.
I disagree: original breaks are, in my opinion, part of the original
presentation (engraving) of the content. There are, of course, grey areas in
the “content versus presentation” discussion — e.g., are clefs content o
Hi Kieren,
interesting: I think you are 100% right, yet I have to express
objections - as it's a matter of perspective. But now I think I should
have said "depending on the perspective original breaks *can be* part of
the content".
Am 30.10.2014 13:21, schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hi Urs,
or
Kieren MacMillan wrote
> That’s exactly what I do. =)
>
> If the \editionEngraver had anchors and direct context addressing, I
> believe I would be able to finally eliminate all presentation-layer coding
> (e.g., \tags, \tweaks, etc.) from my content code.
Hi Kieren, Glad we're on the same page
Paul Morris wrote
> If you have a chance I'm curious what you mean by "direct context
> addressing" and what the problem is there.
Actually, scratch that, I read about it in your post earlier in this thread.
Sounds like a good feature.
-Paul
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1
Urs Liska wrote
> That sounds reasonable.
> However, original breaks *are* part of the content so that's not a
> mixture.
Hi Urs,
Well, I see where you're coming from, but I think we are understanding
"content" differently here.[1]
The original breaks are an important means to render the orig
Am 30. Oktober 2014 02:51:16 MEZ, schrieb Paul Morris :
>I was thinking the edition engraver would be a good way to handle Urs'
>"original breaks" functionality.
>
>Instead of entering the original breaks (tagged or with a special break
>command) in the score in the middle of the music, mixing
Hi Paul,
> I was thinking the edition engraver would be a good way
> to handle Urs’ "original breaks" functionality.
Urs and I have had a brief private correspondence discussing that very point.
=)
Summary: I don’t think the existence of the \editionEngraver means his
“original breaks” func
I was thinking the edition engraver would be a good way to handle Urs'
"original breaks" functionality.
Instead of entering the original breaks (tagged or with a special break
command) in the score in the middle of the music, mixing content and
presentation... I can imagine a way to simply ente
Hi Kieren,
I thought about it, but since September I am employed in another job and
have only very spare time for lily. Well this contract is limited until
the end of year.
There is more to come ...
hope to develop on it soon!
For now
best,
Jan-Peter
Am 27.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb Kieren MacMill
Hi Jan-Peter,
I continue to use your \editionEngraver to great effect. Thanks again! I really
do think such a mechanism — properly tweaked/improved — should become a
standard part of the Liypond distro.
A couple of questions:
1. Have you thought any more about allowing direct addressing of con
Hi,
2014-07-30 20:39 GMT+02:00 Janek Warchoł :
> Hi,
>
> 2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Janek Warchoł writes:
>>> As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
>>>
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>> \newInstrument
2014-07-30 20:47 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>>> Janek Warchoł writes:
As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
\newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { }
Janek Warchoł writes:
> Hi,
>
> 2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
>> Janek Warchoł writes:
>>> As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
>>>
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>> \newInstrument "ViolinII" "Violin" "Sta
Hi,
2014-07-30 0:54 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>> As i said, defining new instrument contexts is very cheap - you can just do
>>
>> \newInstrument "ViolinI" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>> \newInstrument "ViolinII" "Violin" "StaffGroup"\with { } \with { }
>>
>>
Janek Warchoł writes:
> Hi Jan-Peter,
>
> 2014-07-29 9:34 GMT+02:00 Jan-Peter Voigt :
>> Hi Janek,
>>
>> your predefined context are cool :)
>
> Thanks!
>
>> I see them in context with my lalily templates -- they will of course
>> benifit. And the editionEngraver can indeed take advantage from sp
Hi Jan-Peter,
2014-07-29 9:34 GMT+02:00 Jan-Peter Voigt :
> Hi Janek,
>
> your predefined context are cool :)
Thanks!
> I see them in context with my lalily templates -- they will of course
> benifit. And the editionEngraver can indeed take advantage from specific
> context names. But still ther
Hi Janek,
your predefined context are cool :)
I see them in context with my lalily templates -- they will of course
benifit. And the editionEngraver can indeed take advantage from specific
context names. But still there need to be a way to separate (for
example) violin 1 and 2. So I will try to in
Hi,
2014-07-28 3:38 GMT+02:00 Kieren MacMillan :
> Hi Jan-Peter,
>
>> I think the most complicated part is addressing multiple voices in one Staff.
> […]
>> propably there are more things to modify to make it more intuitive.
>
> I think the stated problem would be solved *AND* the whole machinery
Hi Kieren,
I thought of a change - or addition - like your proposal. At least the
"counter" should be exchangable by the context-id.
That way partcombined voices can be addressed by "up", "down" and so on.
I can't say, if it is managable to omit the context-name (Voice or Staff
or else). But we wi
Hi Jan-Peter,
> I think the most complicated part is addressing multiple voices in one Staff.
[…]
> propably there are more things to modify to make it more intuitive.
I think the stated problem would be solved *AND* the whole machinery made more
intuitive by allowing a context to be “direct add
Hi Kieren,
I almost missed your mail ... right now I am on a rehearsal and concert
trip.
On 18.07.2014 21:02, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> This is just another note of thanks to everyone (especially Jan-Peter) who
> makes things like the editionEngraver possible in Lilypond.
> The po
23 matches
Mail list logo
