The math I mentioned is because I interpreted the bar number in:
a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 6
as a help to locate the offending bar number…
David, sorry I offended you about work going on. I've got only one experience
in open software contributions so far, which lead to a dead-end: these guys
didn't even answer to my proposal...
I'll be glad to help on musicxml2ly, with guidance from Patrick or others as to
how to proceed.
Jacques
Le 9 avr. 2013 à 10:08:00, pls <p.l.schm...@gmx.de> a écrit :
> On 09.04.2013, at 09:01, Urs Liska <li...@ursliska.de> wrote:
>
>> Am 09.04.2013 08:49, schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Jacques Menu <jacques.m...@tvtmail.ch> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>
>>>> I've been experimenting with Sibelius 7.1.3 as a front-end to Lily,
>>>> i.e. as a note input engine.
>>>>
>>>> This lead me to fix some issues in musicxml2ly:
>>>> - the comment bar number at the end of regular lines is one
>>>> too much;
>>> I don't see that. It is the number that would be printed above the bar.
>>>
>>>> - it's missing when a \ barNumberCheck is present;
>>> Because then the bar number is given by the \barNumberCheck command.
>>>
>>>> - musicxml2ly crashes if there's no title specified in the XML
>>>> file.
>>> That's certainly an error.
> Which has been fixed on https://github.com/Philomelos/lilypond-musicxml2ly-dev
>>>
>>>> The first two points are important to me since they help locating the
>>>> guilty lines (it's cumbersome to have to do the math each time you
>>>> switch from an error message to the .ly file).
>>> Math? You just look for the right bar number and then read on from
>>> there.
>>>
>>>> Compare the 2.16.2 original with the modified version used on the
>>>> attached file:
>>>>
>>>> < \clef "treble" \key c \major \numericTimeSignature\time 4/4
>>>> < \pageBreak a4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 2
>>>> < \key c \major a4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 3
>>>> < a4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 4
>>>> < g1 | % 5
>>>> < a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 6
>>>> < g1 \break | % 7
>>>> < a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 8
>>>> < g1 | % 9
>>>> < a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | \barNumberCheck #10
>>>> < g1 | % 11
>>>> < a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 12
>>> Looks consistent to me.
>>>
>>>>> a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 9
>>>>> g1 | \barNumberCheck #11 % 10
>> wouldn't it be better to write
>>
>> g1 | % 10
>> \barNumberCheck #11
>>
>>
>> in such cases?
>>
>> Urs
>>
>>
>>>>> a,4 ( a4 ) ( b4 ) d4 | % 11
>>> Not exactly an improvement here, is it?
>>>
>>>> I could spend time on the TODOs mentioned in the code, hence my
>>>> question: is there work going on on musicxml2ly, and if so, can I
>>>> contribute to it?
>>> Wouldn't it be even more important to contribute to it if there was _no_
>>> work going on on musicxml2ly?
>>>
>>> Currently there is not much happening with it.
> Wrong. I spent quite a considerable amount of time tracking down and
> analyzing bugs that lead to compilation failures. These bugs have a high
> priority. There are a lot more issues of the type "ugly". Apart from this
> there are still many white gaps in musicxml2ly. But we only have limited
> time to fix all of these problems...
>>> The Philomelos guys have
>>> their own fork of it, but so far not much has been reintegrated into
>>> LilyPond IIRC.
> We have fixed quite a few issues but there is still a lot to do. Help would
> be very much appreciated! I can offer to help with the reintegration of the
> code and to share our findings / bug reports.
>
> hth
> patrick
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Bien à toi,
Bien à vous,
--
Jacques Menu
Ch. de la Pierre 12
1023 Crissier
mailto:jacques.m...@tvtmail.ch
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
