Am 25.03.2014 11:59, schrieb James:
On 24/03/14 14:45, Rutger Hofman wrote:
On 03/24/2014 01:50 PM, Gilberto Agostinho wrote:> Gilberto Agostinho
wrote
The correct syntax is with the "s" [...]
I meant without.... without the "s", as in "repeat" and NOT "repeats"
Rutger Hofman-2 wrote
[...]
As a fix, I made a small addition to music-functions.scm to add a
dodecaphonic-first accidental style. Patch against 2.17.18-1 attached.
[...]
Using dodecaphonic-first and adding ! here and there works fine for
me.
I already apologize for replying to an old post (almost 1 year
old!), but I
am really interested in this dodecaphonic-first accidental style. The
problem is I do not know how to deal with this .patch file!
Right, so there is a new style dodecaphonic-no-repeat from 2.19.3
onwards. But it does something else than the style dodecaphonic-first
that I wrote about, long ago. dodecaphonic-no-repeat suppresses
accidentals for immediately repeated notes. dodecaphonic-first
suppresses accidentals for any notes that already occurred earlier in
the bar. My opinion is that there is still good use for
dodecaphonic-first; the main reason is that wiping out undesired
accidentals leaves visible traces because it consumes horizontal
space, whereas adding occasional forced accidentals works fully as
desired.
I would love it if the dodecaphonic-first style can be patched into
lilypond; not only for the Greater Good, but also to relieve me from
applying it to each and every lilypond release, and maintaining it
across changes...
I renewed the patch for versions from 2.19.3 upwards. It is attached
(pre-2.19.3 and 2.19.3 onwards; it used to be a reverse-patch, no
longer now). It is extremely small. I also keep it in my github repo
for lilypond additions, in the patches/ dir:
https://github.com/rfhh/lily-contribs
That repo currently also contains my converter from NIFF to lilypond
(and the NIFF sdk, with 64-bit patch), and an upgraded version of
Han-Wen's pmx2ly converter that I used to prepare an edition of
Bach's BWV 146/1052a (on IMSLP).
Rutger
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/dodecaphonic-first-accidental-style-tp141907p160773.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-u...@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-de...@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
adding 'bug'
I've created http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3889
However if you want a proper review/test can you upload to reitveld as
per our process else this won't get the review it might.
If you need help on doing this let us know.
We now have issue
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3889
and patch
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3890
What is the correct way to deal with this?
3889 should be closed, marked as duplicate or merged in 3890.
I'd like to learn how to do that and do it myself rather than simply
asking "someone" to do it.
Urs
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
