Hi "Caagr98",
> I also made this function to add holes in the bracket (requires setting the
> bracket's layer to -1):
> whiteout =
...
I'm not sure that redefining that particular function is your best long-term
plan…
Maybe rename it to something that doesn't conflict with existing function(s)?
I checked with `lilypond scheme-sandbox` to see that it didn't exist...?
On 01/04/18 18:56, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi "Caagr98",
>
>> I also made this function to add holes in the bracket (requires setting the
>> bracket's layer to -1):
>> whiteout =
> ...
>
> I'm not sure that redefining th
> I checked with `lilypond scheme-sandbox` to see that it didn't exist...?
Lilypond contains both a function
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/snippets/editorial-annotations#editorial-annotations-blanking-staff-lines-using-the-_005cwhiteout-command
and an interface property
http://lil
Okay, thanks for the heads-up. I guess I'll rename it to `hole` instead.
On 01/04/18 19:05, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> I checked with `lilypond scheme-sandbox` to see that it didn't exist...?
>
> Lilypond contains both a function
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/snippets/editorial
Kieren MacMillan writes:
>> I checked with `lilypond scheme-sandbox` to see that it didn't exist...?
>
> Lilypond contains both a function
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/snippets/editorial-annotations#editorial-annotations-blanking-staff-lines-using-the-_005cwhiteout-command
Tha
Hi David,
> That's not a function but a markup command. No namespace conflict (the
> symbol defined is whiteout-markup-command I think).
> ...
> Different namespace as well.
Thanks for the clarification! I'm not sure it's a great idea to add a third
'whiteout' thing to Lilypond… but it's good t
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> That's not a function but a markup command. No namespace conflict (the
>> symbol defined is whiteout-markup-command I think).
>> ...
>> Different namespace as well.
>
> Thanks for the clarification! I'm not sure it's a great idea to add a
> third 'whiteo
Dear Werner, and Dear all,
I dont want to set NDT for new compositions. I just want to enjoy
diversity of engraving, with their different valid points. And surely
we will continue to play barock and polypnohic music for many years.
In the mean time, I had and deeper and serious look to Scheme and
The two measure snippet of code appended below
creates the notation that I want. The Fsharp
of measure 1 is very clearly tied to the Fsharp
of measure 2.
However, when I use these two measures in my
actual score, lilypond happens to puts a line
break between those two measures, and the
notation
Hi Ivan,
You have a set of voices for one bar, and then another set for the next
bar. Somewhat strange. Why don't you just create the three voices and
notate inside each one continuously? keeping it simple like this makes work
a whole lot easier I find.
Andrew
Hi Ivan
Only very quickly sketched, and rather deficient, but a more 'normal' voice
arrangement system, and the tie to the f sharp is clear. You can adjust
this a thousand ways, and you could turn off the accidental at the new line
too if you want [with \override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-af
Andrew Bernard wrote:
>
> Why don't you just create the three voices and notate inside
> each one continuously?
Because this music constantly goes back and
forth between homophonic chords and contrapuntal voices.
This is one of the few places in the 150_ measures
that the music goes to three voic
Andrew Bernard wrote:
>
> Only very quickly sketched, and rather deficient, but a more 'normal' voice
> arrangement system, and the tie to the f sharp is clear.
When I compiled your snippet, the exact same issue was present:
the tie to the F-sharp is not clear at all. It _still_
looks like a slur
On Thu 04 Jan 2018 at 22:57:03 (-0600), Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
> Andrew Bernard wrote:
> >
> > Only very quickly sketched, and rather deficient, but a more 'normal' voice
> > arrangement system, and the tie to the f sharp is clear.
>
> When I compiled your snippet, the exact same issue was present
On Sat 30 Dec 2017 at 23:11:04 (+), Michael Ellis wrote:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>- I get correct PDF output on 2.21.0 but a nonsensical wash of bar
>checks that appear to cater to 2/4 throughout.
>
> Thanks for testing it, David. What options did you use for midi2ly and
> lilypond?
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 11:30 PM, David Wright wrote:
>
> So it seems you have several choices:
> remove the accidental,
> shrink it,
> allow the tie and accidental to collide,
> invert the tie (^~),
> shorten it,
> forbid a linebreak just there.
\override Accidental.hide-tied-accidental-after-b
16 matches
Mail list logo