Hi David and Carl and others, It appears that the internal midi code is taking some set of objects, and mapping them to midi events. No great insight here.
I have a source code question, and a related design question: Source Code Question: Where are the musical objects that are being formatted to midi: are they Guile objects or C++ objects? What’s the best way to see and understand these objects. From what I can see, most objects in lilypond are format related (clefs, stems…), not purely musical objects (this pitch for this duration at this time). I tried the graphviz, and all those objects appear to be format related (though I see one can tune this output). Design Question: It appears that the problem with the non-articulate midi output is that it takes these events, and maps them one-to-one. What articulate does is to generate a different set of objects from the originals. These new objects are like a ‘performance’ of the original objects. I suspect that was Jan’s original intention (hence the names performer in the midi source files), but never actually did the step of making a performance from the original events. My assertion: articulate.ly is awkward and less than successful because it doesn’t have access to all the information that the C++ code has. But perhaps I’m wrong: perhaps 100% of what the C++ code knows is available to Guile code? -d _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
