Hello List,
I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
\f, \p, \mf, etc.
However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
Additionally, how would I be able to change the text while maintaining
the
On 12/04/2024 08:21, YTG 1234 wrote:
Hello List,
I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
\f, \p, \mf, etc.
However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
Additionally, how would I be able to
Hi all,
>> I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as \f,
>> \p, \mf, etc.
>> However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
>> because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
>> Additionally, how would I be able to change the text while maintainin
> However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
> because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
Try
```
"f" = #(make-dynamic-script ...)
```
Werner
On 2024-04-12 12:21 am, YTG 1234 wrote:
Hello List,
I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
\f, \p, \mf, etc.
However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
Additionally, how would I be able
On 12/04/2024 11:51, Aaron Hill wrote:
On 2024-04-12 12:21 am, YTG 1234 wrote:
Hello List,
I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
\f, \p, \mf, etc.
However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
because Lilypond interprets f as a note-na
YTG 1234 writes:
> Hello List,
>
> I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
> \f, \p, \mf, etc.
>
> However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
> because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
You could switch to Italian note names temporaril
On 2024-04-12 1:54 am, David Kastrup wrote:
YTG 1234 writes:
Hello List,
I want to override the default text markup used with commands such as
\f, \p, \mf, etc.
However, trying to define f = #(make-dynamic-script ...) doesn't work
because Lilypond interprets f as a note-name.
You could swi
> Might I suggest that “to-barline” is potentially
> misleading/confusing…?
>
> On the other hand:
>
> end-at-barline, for a pedal coded for release on a note **just
> after** a barline, might be more clearly descriptive of the
> current behaviour; and
>
> extend-to-barline, for a
Hi Walt,
On 4/11/24 13:11, Walt North wrote:
> Hello, I would appreciate some help with this music function.
>
> The end goal is have a define function produce a glissando after a
> note going either up or down to undetermined second note. For
> example a guitar slide down off the note.
If I'm u
Hi,how to write a score without time signature and bars placed on request? I read the manual but didn't find a solution.,Here is an example. Tank youGian Paolo
Hi Gian Paolo,
> how to write a score without time signature and bars placed on request?
Just remove the Time_signature_engraver:
\version "2.25.11"
\language "english"
\layout {
indent = 0
ragged-right = ##f
\context {
\Staff
\remove Time_signature_engraver
}
}
{
\key d \ma
On 2024-04-12 12:05, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
Might I suggest that “to-barline” is potentially
misleading/confusing…?
On the other hand:
end-at-barline, for a pedal coded for release on a note **just
after** a barline, might be more clearly descriptive of the
current behaviour; and
Hi Mats,
> Exactly the same feature might also be useful for hairpins and other spanner
> types
Indeed!
I’ll be sure to make the issue I submit a general spanner issue…
Best,
Kieren.
__
My work day may look different than your work day. Please do not
I note that in one solution one uses \remove and in the other \omit to
achieve the same thing.
Is there any prospect of moving to a situation where only one operator
is used to achieve a result, possibly by having a preferred and
deprecated options first? This is a general point, not just re
Hi Raphael,
> I note that in one solution one uses \remove and in the other \omit to
> achieve the same thing.
>
> Is there any prospect of moving to a situation where only one operator is
> used to achieve a result, possibly by having a preferred and deprecated
> options first? This is a gen
> I note that in one solution one uses \remove and in the other \omit to
> achieve the same thing.
>
> Is there any prospect of moving to a situation where only one operator
> is used to achieve a result, possibly by having a preferred and
> deprecated options first? This is a general point,
Am Donnerstag, 11. April 2024, 19:11:45 CEST schrieb Walt North:
> Hello, I would appreciate some help with this music function.
>
> The end goal is have a define function produce a glissando after a note
> going either up or down to
>
> undetermined second note. For example a guitar slide down
18 matches
Mail list logo
