Re: hide and omit behaviour

Hi Joram, > The first triplet should show the number, the following not. In rare > cases, I would like to force the triplet number again. I tried to do > this with \omit TupletNumber, but there is one problem as this snippet > shows: [snippet snipped] > How can I achieve a "showTupletNumberOnce"

Re: hide and omit behaviour

[forget my last mail...hit return too early while checking my example...] > I am trying to achieve this for triplets: > The first triplet should show the number, the following not. In rare > cases, I would like to force the triplet number again. I tried to do > this with \omit TupletNumber, but th

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Hi Joram, Rather than trying to figure pushing and popping state from a notional stack, I just do what you want with some simple functions. Crude but effective. I have quickly adapted these three functions from ones I use to turn on or off tuplet brackets and numbers at will. I think you get th

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Michael Gerdau writes: > [forget my last mail...hit return too early while checking my example...] > >> I am trying to achieve this for triplets: >> The first triplet should show the number, the following not. In rare >> cases, I would like to force the triplet number again. I tried to do >> this

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Thanks David, >> Not sure pushing things back is part of the "\once" functionality. > > It isn't. Correct. Plain context properties don't have either stack or > the subproperty complications of \override, so \once\unset, as opposed > to \once\revert, indeed works. That explains it, thanks. >

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Hi Andrew, thanks, but I wonder why do you use a #point-stencil instead of ##f – which would be equivalent to my \omit version (if I understand things correctly), wouldn't it? Cheers, Joram Am 07.09.2015 um 10:10 schrieb Andrew Bernard: > tupletNumberOff = { > %\once \override TupletBracke

what's wrong with \partial

Hi there, The following snippet can't give correct output. It produced the following warnings: warning: barcheck failed at: -1/4 \partial2 d4 | \version "2.19.26" \relative c' { \clef "treble" \key g \major \tempo 4 = 100 \numericTimeSignature \time 3/4 \partial2 d4 | g4 g g | }

Re: what's wrong with \partial

Hello Jinsong, That’s because your barcheck is in the wrong spot. You have two 4’s in the upbeat. \version "2.19.26" \relative c' { \clef "treble" \key g \major \tempo 4 = 100 \numericTimeSignature \time 3/4 \partial 2 d4 g4 | g g } And

Re: what's wrong with \partial

Try this: Change \partial 2 to \partial 4 "\partial 2" means that the first measure contains a half-note's worth of time. It does *not* mean the first part of the measure you want to leave out. You obviously want only one quarter note in the partial measure so you need '\partial 4'. -David

Re: what's wrong with \partial

On Monday 07 September 2015 20:40:42 Jinsong Zhao wrote: > \version "2.19.26" > \relative c' { > \clef "treble" > \key g \major > \tempo 4 = 100 > \numericTimeSignature > \time 3/4 > You probably mean \partial 4 d4 | > g4 g g | > } \partial expect a duration (of the partial). You have it invers

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Am 07.09.2015 um 11:00 schrieb Noeck: Hi Andrew, thanks, but I wonder why do you use a #point-stencil instead of ##f – which would be equivalent to my \omit version (if I understand things correctly), wouldn't it? Sometimes, e.g. with NoteHeads IIRC, it causes problems if you have no stencil at

Re: hide and omit behaviour

Setting it to #f was causing fatal crashes in Fedora 22 until the amazing developers got it fixed. Using #point-stencil was found to avoid the problem. Andrew On 7/09/2015 19:00, "Noeck" wrote: >Hi Andrew, > >thanks, but I wonder why do you use a #point-stencil instead of ##f – >which woul

Style question for bar checks

Hi, this is a question of ly code style: Would you recommend putting the bar check always after the note or in some circumstances also after an including brace? Background: In many cases it is wrong to put a bar check outside braces because it is then outside the music expression and appears as i

Re: Style question for bar checks

Noeck gmx.de> writes: > Would you recommend putting the bar check always after the note or in > some circumstances also after an including brace? > \alternative { > { a2 b } | % wrong > { a2 a } | % wrong > } If there is more than one measure in each alternative sequence, then th

octava sign

Hi, I need something like "8va opt." How can I tweak the "\ottava #1" command to achive this? thanks for a hint ole ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Hello, I have a problem with \shapeII (from openlilylib; in the override-like form) using v2.19.25. The following snippet: \version "2.19.25" \include "notation-snippets/shaping-bezier-curves/shapeII.ily" { \shapeII #'((0 . 2)) #'(Slur) c''( b) } has been

Re: octava sign

- Original Message - From: "Ole Schmidt" To: Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 8:22 PM Subject: octava sign Hi, I need something like "8va opt." How can I tweak the "\ottava #1" command to achive this? thanks for a hint ole Have a look in the documentation: http://lilypond.org/d

Re: Style question for bar checks

Noeck writes: > Hi, > > this is a question of ly code style: > Would you recommend putting the bar check always after the note or in > some circumstances also after an including brace? > > Background: In many cases it is wrong to put a bar check outside braces > because it is then outside the mus

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Hi Simon, I have no 2.19.25 installed (so perhaps it produces the same error), but how about \shapeII #'((0 . 2)) Slur ? This is understood by older Ly versions, too. HTH, Joram Am 07.09.2015 um 21:26 schrieb Simon Albrecht: > version "2.19.25" > \include "notation-snippets/shaping-bezier-curves

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Am 07.09.2015 um 21:31 schrieb Noeck: Hi Simon, I have no 2.19.25 installed (so perhaps it produces the same error), but how about \shapeII #'((0 . 2)) Slur ? This is understood by older Ly versions, too. Both are exactly equivalent. I only accidentally pasted the #'(Slur) version which I had a

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Simon Albrecht writes: > Hello, > > I have a problem with \shapeII (from openlilylib; in the override-like > form) using v2.19.25. The following snippet: > > \version "2.19.25" > \include "notation-snippets/shaping-bezier-curves/shapeII.ily" > > { > \shapeII #'((0 . 2)) #'(Slur

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Am 7. September 2015 22:48:33 MESZ, schrieb David Kastrup : >Simon Albrecht writes: > >> Hello, >> >> I have a problem with \shapeII (from openlilylib; in the >override-like >> form) using v2.19.25. The following snippet: >> >> \version "2.19.25" >> \include "notation-snippets/s

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Urs Liska writes: > Am 7. September 2015 22:48:33 MESZ, schrieb David Kastrup : >>Simon Albrecht writes: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I have a problem with \shapeII (from openlilylib; in the >>override-like >>> form) using v2.19.25. The following snippet: >>> >>> \version "2.19.25" >>>

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Am 07.09.2015 um 22:52 schrieb Urs Liska: Simon, please create an issue on GitHub with this information. Should be updated with a version switch. Done. I included the new file in the issue. Yours, Simon _

Re: shapeII (openlilylib) with v2.19.25

Am 07.09.2015 um 22:48 schrieb David Kastrup: Simon Albrecht writes: Hello, I have a problem with \shapeII (from openlilylib; in the override-like form) using v2.19.25. The following snippet: \version "2.19.25" \include "notation-snippets/shaping-bezier-curves/shapeII.ily" {