Am 7. Februar 2015 04:47:11 MEZ, schrieb Craig Dabelstein <craig.dabelst...@gmail.com>: >Dear Urs, > >All good. > >I've followed all your instructions -- no problem. > >However, perhaps I'm putting \setOption >scholarly.annotate.export-targets >#'("latex" "plaintext") in the wrong place. I put this in the >"main-init.ily" file, yes? > >When I try to engrave the score I get this error: > >Parsing... > > >openLilyLib: library infrastructure successfully loaded. > > >Interpreting music...[8][16][24] >/Users/craigdabelstein/Dropbox/Lilypond/openlilylib/ly/scholarly/annotate/__main__.ily:150:34 ><0>: In procedure string->symbol in expression (string->symbol ctx-id): > >/Users/craigdabelstein/Dropbox/Lilypond/openlilylib/ly/scholarly/annotate/__main__.ily:150:34 ><1>: Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting string): #t > >Exited with return code 1.
This looks like a bug to me. It seems you managed to use a constellation I failed to check. This is in the code where the name of the context is determined. Please try with a simple example file to check whether you can get it to compile at all. Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to work on this today at all. Best Urs . > >Craig > > > >On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 11:23:04 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: > >> >> Am 07.02.2015 um 00:40 schrieb Urs Liska: >> >> >> Am 07.02.2015 um 00:39 schrieb Craig Dabelstein: >> >> Hi List, >> >> Sorry for the frustrating question, but how do I combine Samuel's >code -- @[^@]*@ >> -- with an annotate message such as -- "Should the @\textit{cresc.} >begin >> here or immediately after the preceeding \lilyDynamics{pp}@?" >> >> >> You don't do that at all. You simply wait until I have managed to >update >> everything and upload it ;-) >> >> >> Sorry, didn't intend to sound harsh ... >> >> Now I've fixed a few more things and uploaded it to Github - but you >have >> to make significant changes to get anything new, because I've moved >the >> whole thing into a new structure within openLilyLib. >> Sorry to let you switch just after having started, but it's better to >do >> The Right Thing now. >> >> I will soon write a new post about all this (which I'm extremely >excited >> about), but for now just the instructions for using ScholarLY: >> >> >> - Discard the ScholarLY repository >> (if you'd do git pull you'd probably be surprised to be left with >only >> one README file ;-) ) >> - Remove the path to ScholarLY from LilyPond's include path >> - Download, clone or update openLilyLib (from >> https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib) >> - Add the /ly directory within that repository to LilyPond's >include >> path >> (If you already use openLilyLib you will have its root directory >in >> the include path, and you should keep that for now. Once the >reorganization >> is finished this can be removed - but that will take a >considerable amount >> of time I >> >> Once that is in place you have to modify your documents like this: >> >> - remove the \include "scholarly/annotate.ily" >> - add >> \include "openlilylib" >> - add >> \loadModule "scholarly" >> >> Now you can use the annotation commands as before. >> What is significantly different is the common configuration >> infrastructure. This is not documented for ScholarLY yet (as said >I'll make >> a proper announcement later when it's ready). Basically you can >configure >> ScholarLY (or any other to-be-added openLilyLib library) with the new >> \setOption >> command that is part of the new openLilyLib infrastructure. >> >> As said the options are not documented yet, but you can have a look >at >> config.ily in the annotate folder. >> What you'll need is probably >> >> \setOption scholarly.annotate.export-targets #'("latex" "plaintext") >> >> You can also experiment with >> >> \setOption scholarly.annotate.print ##f >> \setOption scholarly.annotate.sort-criteria #'("type") >> \setOption scholarly.colorize ##f >> >> Good luck >> >> >> Urs >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 7:49:15 AM Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> >wrote: >> >>> >>> Am 06.02.2015 um 22:46 schrieb Br. Samuel Springuel: >>> > On 2015-02-06 4:18 PM, Noeck wrote: >>> >> You could also enforce this by now allowing all characters >between >>> >> the @: >>> >> e.g. @[-a-zA-Z\\_]*@ >>> > >>> > Rather than include all characters not "@" it would be better to >>> > simply exclude "@". I.e.: >>> > >>> > @[^@]*@ >>> > >>> > The "^", when it is the first character inside a brace changes the >>> > brace from meaning "anything in this group" to meaning "anything >not >>> > in this group". As a result this expression will match an string >>> > contained between to "@" characters which does not itself contain >an @ >>> > character. >>> > >>> > I'm fairly certain this is standard for regular expressions. >>> >>> Maybe. In any case it seems to work for the problem at hand, while >>> "@.*?@" did not work. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Urs >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > ✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝ >>> > Br. Samuel, OSB >>> > (R. Padraic Springuel) >>> > >>> > PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > lilypond-user mailing list >>> > lilypond-user@gnu.org >>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> lilypond-user mailing list >>> lilypond-user@gnu.org >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing >listlilypond-user@gnu.orghttps://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing list >> lilypond-user@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >>
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user