Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, I went through this a couple of months ago, and it *seems* possible to use markups (and paths) as legitimately new articulations (maybe -- and happily -- in contradiction to the assumption in your original post, if I'm reading correctly). Here's the pattern as a MWE: %%% BEGIN NOVEL ARTI

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Aaron, althought this has long left the original thread's purpose I find this extremely interesting. Would you be interested in adding some content to https://scheme-book.ursliska.de, maybe somewhere below https://scheme-book.ursliska.de/scheme/lists/? There is always need for explanations

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

On 2018-10-13 12:29 am, Aaron Hill wrote: According to the docs [1], assoc-set! (and family) may modify the original alist. So whether a copy is made or not depends on an implementation detail. Near as I can tell, the original alist is modified in-place when the key is found within. But when t

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

On 2018-10-13 12:01 am, Urs Liska wrote: Hi Harm, Am 13.10.2018 um 01:18 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. #(d

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Harm, Am 13.10.2018 um 01:18 schrieb Thomas Morley: Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. #(define my-script-alist default-script-alist)

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, Am Sa., 13. Okt. 2018 um 00:00 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : > > %% Not sure if needed, though, better be paranoid and work on a copy of > > %% default-script-alist to avoid possible bleed-over. > > #(define my-script-alist default-script-alist) > > Except that this doesn't *create* a copy but

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

... Am So., 30. Sep. 2018 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : Creating a new articulation (or overwriting the definition of an existing one) seems tempting using something like #(append! default-script-alist (list `("scriptDownbow" . ((script-stencil

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs, sorry for the late reply. Right now I've a cold (not working in my regular job), so I've more time to look into lilypond-tasks. While waiting for a guile-complie to finish... Am So., 30. Sep. 2018 um 12:01 Uhr schrieb Urs Liska : > Creating a new articulation (or ov

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Am 30.09.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Lukas-Fabian Moser: Hi Urs,     upbow =     #(define-music-function ()()        #{          \tweak self-alignment-X #CENTER          -\markup "hin."        #}) because     c4 \upbow will fail with the complaint about an unexpected post-event (I have to write

Re: Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

Hi Urs,     upbow =     #(define-music-function ()()        #{          \tweak self-alignment-X #CENTER          -\markup "hin."        #}) because     c4 \upbow will fail with the complaint about an unexpected post-event (I have to write -\upbow) If you use define-event-function instead

Define new articulation with markup or path (instead of glyph)

l fail with the complaint about an unexpected post-event (I have to write -\upbow) The second limitation to this is that it doesn't align to the notehead's center but to the stem. Therefore I thought creating either an articulation or a dynamic text. Creating a new articulation (

Defining new articulation symbols

To make new articulations such as ‘staccato forzato’ - an accent over a dot, and ‘marcato e legato’ - an accent over a legato, how would you go about it? The point being that they should be a single unity so that they can be parenthesised. Andrew __

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

0.83 0.63 0.80 0.70 0.80) >(curveto 0.90 0.80 0.87 1.15 1.11 1.28) >(curveto 0.90 1.29 0.58 1.11 0.58 0.91)) > > > %% New articulation: > #(append! default-script-alist >(list > `("mon-articulation" >. ( &

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

7;s ly/stylesheets >> /fonts/arnold-extensions.ily (I think). >> >> Good luck >> Urs >> >> Am 6. April 2015 15:12:49 MESZ, schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider < >> pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I&#

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

in latest unstable* \scale #'(-2 . -2) \override #'(filled . #t) \path #0.01 #'((moveto0.58 0.91) (curveto 0.58 0.83 0.63 0.80 0.70 0.80) (curveto 0.90 0.80 0.87 1.15 1.11 1.28) (curveto 0.90 1.29 0.58 1.11 0.58 0.91)) %% New art

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

l, > > I've followed this conversation with a lot of interest: > > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Creating-new-articulation-adding-to-an-internal-alist-td172689.html > > However, there's something I'm missing. > I'm trying to put my own glyph into a new art

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

onts/arnold-extensions.ily (I think). > > Good luck > Urs > > Am 6. April 2015 15:12:49 MESZ, schrieb Pierre Perol-Schneider > mailto:pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>>: > Hi All, > > I've followed this conversation with a lot of interest: > http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabb

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

der < > pierre.schneider.pa...@gmail.com>: > >> Hi All, >> >> I've followed this conversation with a lot of interest: >> >> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Creating-new-articulation-adding-to-an-internal-alist-td172689.html >> >> However, ther

Re: Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

a lot of interest: >http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Creating-new-articulation-adding-to-an-internal-alist-td172689.html > >However, there's something I'm missing. >I'm trying to put my own glyph into a new articulation script without >success: I still have to go thr

Custom glyph articulation [WAS: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist) ]

Hi All, I've followed this conversation with a lot of interest: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Creating-new-articulation-adding-to-an-internal-alist-td172689.html However, there's something I'm missing. I'm trying to put my own glyph into a new articulation script with

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

D> The "not guaranteed"s in the Guile documentation always struck me D> as odd--why can't definitive answers be given? (repeat-n 1000 "...functional!...") :-) The promised optimization - perhaps re-using existing structure to do its work - is a potential one: whether it's able to get any

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 06.03.2015 15:22, schrieb David Nalesnik: > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:20 AM, David Nalesnik > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Urs Liska wrote: >> >>> >>> Thanks. >>> And for completeness I also add another (contrived

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Am 06.03.2015 15:22, schrieb David Nalesnik: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:20 AM, David Nalesnik mailto:david.nales...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Urs Liska mailto:u...@openlilylib.org>> wrote: Thanks. And for completeness I also add another (contriv

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:20 AM, David Nalesnik wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > >> >> Thanks. >> And for completeness I also add another (contrived) example image of the >> whole thing. Small quiz: Who recognizes what this is historically? ;-) >> >> > Well, I recog

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > > Thanks. > And for completeness I also add another (contrived) example image of the > whole thing. Small quiz: Who recognizes what this is historically? ;-) > > Well, I recognize the arsis and thesis and the Hauptstimme designation--which all id

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Am 06.03.2015 15:03, schrieb David Nalesnik: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Urs Liska > wrote: Am 06.03.2015 14:35, schrieb David Nalesnik: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:24 AM, David Nalesnik mailto:david.nales...@gmail.com>> wrote: \version

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 06.03.2015 14:35, schrieb David Nalesnik: > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:24 AM, David Nalesnik > wrote: > >> >> >> \version "2.19.16" >> >> #(set! default-script-alist >>(append default-script-alist >> (list >>

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:40 AM, Urs Liska wrote: Hm, I took this idiom from assoc-set! where the manual says it is not > guaranteed that the original alist is actually modified, > The "not guaranteed"s in the Guile documentation always struck me as odd--why can't definitive answers be given? Bu

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Am 06.03.2015 14:35, schrieb David Nalesnik: On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:24 AM, David Nalesnik mailto:david.nales...@gmail.com>> wrote: \version "2.19.16" #(set! default-script-alist (append default-script-alist (list `("weakbeat"

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:24 AM, David Nalesnik wrote: > > > \version "2.19.16" > > #(set! default-script-alist >(append default-script-alist > (list > `("weakbeat" > . ( > (script-stencil . (feta . ("weakbeat" . "weakbeat"))) >

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Hi Urs, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > Am 06.03.2015 13:59, schrieb David Nalesnik: > > Hi Urs, > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I've got a new notation font (which is going to be released soon), and >> this font contains a few historic e

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Am 06.03.2015 13:59, schrieb David Nalesnik: Hi Urs, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Urs Liska > wrote: Hi, I've got a new notation font (which is going to be released soon), and this font contains a few historic extra glyphs that I would like to a

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Hi Urs, On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Urs Liska wrote: > Hi, > > I've got a new notation font (which is going to be released soon), and > this font contains a few historic extra glyphs that I would like to add as > articulations. (One can access them as \markup but articulations would be > mo

Re: Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

Am 06.03.2015 um 09:06 schrieb Urs Liska: Hi, I've got a new notation font (which is going to be released soon), and this font contains a few historic extra glyphs that I would like to add as articulations. Ah, and just if someone's interested there is an example of how it looks like (see

Creating new articulation (adding to an internal alist)

requested Lily complains about not knowning "how to interpret articulation". If I put the command inside scm/script.scm or if I directly insert the element in the list definition in that file my new articulation works. This tells me that I correctly assign the list entry but that it doe

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

er — or best, if the schleifer ornament would be built into Lilypond. :-) Ole -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Need-a-new-articulation-glyph-tp29839p156595.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

Hi George, On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 11:56 AM, George_ wrote: Only...I can't figure out how to make it move up or down. If someone could > help me with this I'd really appreciate it. This adds another argument to the function which will move the markup up or down: \version "2.15.16" dwn = #(d

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=720 > > Also see this discussion: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg64645.html > > HTH, > David > > ___ > lilypond-user

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

Item?id=720 > > Also see this discussion: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg64645.html > > HTH, > David > > ___ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org >

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

Hi George, > > >> I'd appreciate some feedback on how to implement a new ornament: >> >> http://old.nabble.com/file/**p32910828/Untitled.png >> >> It's a Bach ornament known as a slide, and is normally played by playing >> the >> 2 consecutive not

Re: Need a new articulation glyph...

- Original Message - From: "George_" To: Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2011 5:27 AM Subject: Need a new articulation glyph... I'd appreciate some feedback on how to implement a new ornament: http://old.nabble.com/file/p32910828/Untitled.png It's a Bach ornament k

Need a new articulation glyph...

help George -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Need-a-new-articulation-glyph...-tp32910828p32910828.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gn

new articulation

Hello, I'm transcribing some organ music and there are a couple of symbols that are used rather frequently, and I was wondering how difficult it would be for me to try and create them myself. <><> First, a bracket, either above, or below a note, on either the left or right side. (I just real

Re: Error in new articulation _

n "-_" "-.--" should be reversed ? ( "-_" for the most common case (the dot closer to the notehead), and -.-- for the line near the notehead). It will save keystrokes for the most common case, isn't it ? Alex. Graham Percival wrote: On 30-Oct-04, at 5:03

Re: Error in new articulation _

and -.-- for the line near the notehead). It will save keystrokes for the most common case, isn't it ? Alex. Graham Percival wrote: On 30-Oct-04, at 5:03 AM, Alexandre Beneteau wrote: I am wondering if the new articulation _ (which produce a dot and a _ over the notehead) does not print

Re: Error in new articulation _

On 30-Oct-04, at 5:03 AM, Alexandre Beneteau wrote: I am wondering if the new articulation _ (which produce a dot and a _ over the notehead) does not print it wrongly. If you use "-.--" then Lilypond will print the dot closer to the notehead. "-_" is supposed to be used wh

Error in new articulation _

Hello, I am wondering if the new articulation _ (which produce a dot and a _ over the notehead) does not print it wrongly. I explain myself : I think the dot should be near the notehead and the _ (don't find the english word !) should be after it, like this : _ . x | | But actually, lil