Re: Issue 621 in lilypond: Dynamics should avoid cross-staff BarLines (e.g. GrandStaff, PianoStaff etc)
Updates:
Status: Accepted
Labels: -Patch-review
Comment #11 on issue 621 by k-ohara5...@oco.net: Dynamics should avoid
cross-staff BarLines (e.g. GrandStaff, PianoStaff etc)
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=621
One argument against having Lilypond make space for dynamic marks, is that
hand engravers do not let dynamics influence not spacing.
It is always better to off-center the dynamics from their note, or make a
gap in the bar line (Jay's workarounds from comment 2). I don't see how
Lilypond can do this on her own but the workarounds got a bit easier:
\new StaffGroup <<
\override Score.DynamicText #'whiteout = ##t
{ c'1 c'4\fff c'2 c'8 c'\ppp
\once\override StaffGroup.DynamicText #'X-offset = #-1
c'4\fff c'2 c'8
\once\override StaffGroup.DynamicText #'X-offset = #-2.5
g'8\ppp}
{ c'1 c'4\fff c'2-> c'8 c'\ppp | c'4\fff c'2-> c'8 c'8\ppp }
R1*3
Attachments:
workaround.png 16.7 KB
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
On 11-07-29 08:21 AM, lilyp...@googlecode.com wrote: Comment #15 on issue 1663 by philehol...@googlemail.com: Images missing on web site http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663 My comment above was right, and adding contributor to the list of post-processed files has corrected that as well. A patch is available to fix this bug. ___ Will this mean that we won't have to use the separate scripts/auxiliar/cg-section.sh SECTION as in CG 5.6, Phil? Colin -- The human race has one really effective weapon, and that is laughter. -- Mark Twain ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Codas not followed in MIDI output
Jon Toohill gmail.com> writes: > If I'm mistaken, and Lilypond DOES follow segnos and codas in the MIDI > output (and I'm just doing it wrong), then please let me know! > You are correct, Lilypond makes no attempt to follow segnos and codas. I know of no good way to repeat these structures in MIDI, but the MIDI is mostly for proofreading the entry of notes. (I tried making an additional parallel voice that spells out the "d.s. al coda" as an explicit \repeat\alternative. That failed because \unfoldRepeats unfolds *only* the voice that has the \repeat and \alternative, not the simultaneous voices.} ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
Comment #18 on issue 1663 by percival.music.ca: Images missing on web site http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663 oops, yeah, comment 9. Anyway, if it works for you... maybe I screwed up when I tried to make the change earlier? Let's move ahead with the patch and see if any problems arise. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
Comment #17 on issue 1663 by philehol...@googlemail.com: Images missing on web site http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663 Not issue 9, comment 9, I presume. I've just run make website, I have a new set of files in out-website, and all the ones I've looked at have their full quota of images. TBH not sure why, but that's what I get. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
Comment #16 on issue 1663 by percival.music.ca: Images missing on web site http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663 does your patch address the problem in issue 9? to whit, apply your patch, then run: make website if that breaks, then we cannot accept the patch as it stands. I definitely agree with fixing contributor => post-process first, though! :) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Codas not followed in MIDI output
Hi, I've been using Lilypond quite a bit lately, and noticed codas aren't followed in the MIDI output. I tried using \unfoldRepeats, and while it worked fine for normal volta repeats, it didn't solve the coda problem. I'd be happy to provide a small snippet to illustrate the issue, if you want. If I'm mistaken, and Lilypond DOES follow segnos and codas in the MIDI output (and I'm just doing it wrong), then please let me know! Thanks, -Jon Toohill ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1786 in lilypond: New engraver for braces
Comment #2 on issue 1786 by bordage@gmail.com: New engraver for braces http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1786 As I wrote on codereview, this is due to one of Mike's latest commits. Bertrand ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: some comments do not appear in the tracker page
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:42:23AM +0200, Urs Liska wrote: > I think the question at hand is: Shouldn't any discussion of issues > already on the tracker be done only on the tracker. I think so. > But this has of course to be done manually by anybody posting a > comment to an issue. Yes, that's a pain. > Of course the tracker or mailing list software can't possibly > interpret mails and eventually route it to a tracker issue (at least > not reliably) ... Actually, Rietveld does this quite painlessly. Just reply to a codereview email and it shows up on Rietveld. It would be nice if the bug tracker worked in the same way. Anybody up for filing a feature enhancement with them? Cheers, - Graham ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
Comment #15 on issue 1663 by philehol...@googlemail.com: Images missing on web site http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663 My comment above was right, and adding contributor to the list of post-processed files has corrected that as well. A patch is available to fix this bug. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1663 in lilypond: Images missing on web site
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #14 on issue 1663 by philehol...@googlemail.com: Images missing on
web site
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1663
Update. After much tracking, I know how to fix the problem with web. As
it turns out, my suggestion in comment 5 will fix the problem in both the
big and split versions of the web page. The reason for this is that almost
all of the website is post-processed (during the "Mirroring" phase):
www_post calls postprocess_html.process_html_files and in
process_html_files there's a call to hack_urls() which uses the
regex "pictures_re = re.compile ('src="(pictures/.*?)"')" to get add
the ../ before pictures in split pages. I've tested amending the macro and
can confirm it works.
I'm not creating a patch yet, because contributor still isn't right - the
included pictures are still missing. I believe this is because contributor
isn't in the list of post-processed files and will look at fixing this
before creating a patch.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1567 in lilypond: Add documentation for footnotes
Updates: Labels: -Patch-needs_work Patch-review Comment #9 on issue 1567 by pkx1...@gmail.com: Add documentation for footnotes http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1567 Mike's new addition to footnotes doesn't affect this patch so I would like to get this pushed and when Mike comes back with more explanation for his newer patch which will then take more reviewing I can update the documentation with the additions than hold this back. http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045 ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Issue 1788 in lilypond: auto numbering footnote checkin doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
Comment #2 on issue 1788 by mts...@gmail.com: auto numbering footnote
checkin doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1788
AUTOMATIC-FOOTNOTES
In automatic footnotes, there are three pertinent commands
\autoFootnote
\autoFootnoteGrob
\footnote
1) \autoFootnote
\autoFootnote is to be used within the context of a chord.
It accepts two arguments:
-- a pair showing how the annotation is displaced with respect to the
original note (ie #'(1 . 1))
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
2) \autoFootnoteGrob
\autoFootnoteGrob is to be used before the command that results in the
creation of the grob you want to footnote
It accepts three arguments:
-- a symbol showing the name of the grob to footnote
-- a pair showing how the annotation is displaced with respect to the
original note (ie #'(1 . 1))
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
3) \footnote
\footnote is to be used within the context of a markup.
It accepts two arguments:
-- a markup that will be automatically annotated
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
By "automatically annotated," I mean that the correct annotation will be
concatenated to the right end of the markup.
So, `\footnote foo bar' will read foo^1 in the actual text if foo is the
first thing footnoted, and bar will automatically have a 1 pre-pended at
the bottom of the page.
In the paper block, there are four variables that may be set with respect
to automatic footnotes:
footnote-auto-numbering (default = ##t)
-- if you set this to false, you can still use the commands \autoFootnote
and \autoFootnoteGrob, but there will be no annotation added.
additionally, if you use \footnote, the markup that is footnoted will
receive no additional annotation.
footnote-number-raise (default = 0.5\mm)
-- this controls how high the annotation numbers are raised at the bottom
of the page. try playing with it and look at the bottom of the page:
you'll see what it does immediately
footnote-numbering-function (default = #numbered-footnotes)
-- a function that takes ONE AND ONLY ONE INPUT, which should be an
INTEGER, and returns the appropriate markup to be used in numbering the
current prefabbed functions in output-lib.scm that work with this are
`numbered-footnotes' and `symbol-footnotes'. You can create your own w/o
too much hassle, ie:
footnote-numbering-function = #(lambda (x) (markup #:tiny "thank
you james!"))
reset-footnotes-on-new-page (default = ##t)
-- automatic footnote annotations reset on each new page.
All non-automatic paper-block commands apply to automatic footnotes as well.
NON-AUTOMATIC-FOOTNOTES
*** ATTENTION ***
For non-automatic footnotes, the paper block MUST contain
footnote-auto-number = ##f
Otherwise, LilyPond will spew numbers all over the page.
*** NOITNETTA ***
In non-automatic footnotes, there are three pertinent commands.
\footnote
\footnoteGrob
\footnote (double listing intentional, see below)
1) \footnote
\footnote is to be used within the context of a chord.
It accepts three arguments:
-- a pair showing how the annotation is displaced with respect to the
original note (ie #'(1 . 1))
-- a markup containing the symbol that will refer to the annotation below
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
2) \footnoteGrob
\footnoteGrob is to be used before the command that results in the creation
of the grob you want to footnote
It accepts four arguments:
-- a symbol showing the name of the grob to footnote
-- a pair showing how the annotation is displaced with respect to the
original note (ie #'(1 . 1))
-- a markup containing the symbol that will refer to the annotation below
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
3) \footnote
\footnote is to be used within the context of a markup (hence the double
listing: it works differently than the footnote within chords).
It accepts two arguments:
-- a markup that should have its own annotation
-- a markup containing the footnote that will be typset above
By "own annotation", I mean that the markup should contain its own
annotation. So,
So, `\footnote foo bar' will read foo in the actual text and bar will have
no number typset next to it. If you want annotation
numbers/symbols/whatever, you need to roll your own, i.e.
\footnote "foo*" "*bar".
In the paper block, there are three variables that may be set with respect
to ALL footnotes (non-automatic and automatic):
footnote-separator-markup (default = \markup \fill-line { \override
#'(span-factor . 1/2) \draw-hline } )
-- separates the music from the footnotes
footnote-padding (default = 0.5\mm)
-- the padding between each footnote
footnote-footer-padding (default = 0.5\mm)
-- the padding between the bottom-most footnote and the footer
___
bug-lilypond mailing
Re: Issue 1788 in lilypond: auto numbering footnote checkin doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
Updates:
Status: Started
Comment #1 on issue 1788 by pkx1...@gmail.com: auto numbering footnote
checkin doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1788
From Mike:
)You need to set footnote-auto-numbering = ##f in the paper block in
all )your old examples.
)
)Cheers,
)MS
err.. did you look at the 'weird' pdf example?
Weird? It is beautiful!
I didn't get any error from LP when I compiled it, so the user is not
going to get any knowledge that something is not right. They are just
going to get their music covered with numbers in all the margins and any
markups that contain glyphs will not come out (even though they have been
explicitly marked).
I'll post a patch with an error message.
While documentation does help users do the right thing, we should be
reporting in the compilation message that something is wrong when they
make the file, I just don't know what can and cannot be used without the
\paper { } layout block now. All that this ##f option does as far as I
can tell is that it restarts the autonumbering again on the next page.
I have added a convert-ly rule letting users know that this will happen in
case they've used footnotes in 2.14.
Also, it seems there are now 3 commands
\footnote
\footnoteGrob
and now \autofootnoteGrob
but is there \autofootnote too?
and are you saying the \auto* is mutually exclusive from the other type
and if we only have \autofootnoteGrob, what happens (as this example
shows) if I want to use \autofootnoteGrob and \footnote you can't?
I don't think just telling a user to use this in the \paper { } block is
good enough compared to what we have.
I will write up a long e-mail either this weekend or tonight with reports
on how automatic numbering works and send it to devel. But you're right
above - there is no \autofootnote command. And, for now, if you add \paper
{ footnote-auto-numbering = ##f } to all of your examples, they should look
exactly like they did before.
Cheers,
MS
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Issue 1788 in lilypond: auto numbering footnote checkin doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
Status: Accepted
Owner: mts...@gmail.com
Labels: Priority-High Type-Defect
New issue 1788 by pkx1...@gmail.com: auto numbering footnote checkin
doesn't play with \null and \musicglyph
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1788
Before commit: 233aad0ba9781e43424c4e77a859e42b660210e6
The following example worked fine:
\version "2.15.6"
#(set-default-paper-size "a6")
\book {
\relative c' {
c1
\breathe
\footnoteGrob #'BreathingSign #'(1 . 1)
\markup { \musicglyph #"rests.4" }
\markup { \null }
}
}
Now it prints the numeral '1' all over the place actually. If you change
\null to " ", then it goes away but I get a number with no footnote. It
also seems to ignore the glyph used in a markup.
My original intention in my doc patch
(http://codereview.appspot.com/4751045/) was to show how to have
a 'footnoteGrob markup without a footnote (and also show how you can add
space between the copyright and the last footnote), Neil suggested I use
\null instead of " " which did the same thing, until now.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: some comments do not appear in the tracker page
Am 29.07.2011 10:21, schrieb James Lowe: Janek, )-Original Message- )From: Janek Warchoł [mailto:lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com] )Sent: 29 July 2011 05:49 )To: James Lowe )Cc: lilypond-de...@gnu.org; Lilypond Bugreports )Subject: Re: some comments do not appear in the tracker page ) )James, ) )2011/7/27 James Lowe: )> Janek )> )> )On Behalf Of Janek Warchol: )> )there is a problem with comments in the tracker. At least 2 comments )> )didn't make it to the "changing G clef" issue page: )> )- Trevor's comment from July 26th, containing sentence "The G clef )> font )was changed 18 months or so ago by Carl without all this fuss" )> )- Carls comment, perhaps from July 25th, containing sentence "This )> )proposal was based on Graham's assertion that 2.16 is 10 days away )> from )release" )> )> Are these messages you are missing on the tracker itself (as opposed to )someone just replying to the email that the tracker generates)? ) )Umm, i don't understand what you mean... ) )When you go to )http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1752 ), do you see any message sent by Trevor? For example "I agree. LilyPond )has many glyphs. If we start using overrides to select glyphs with minor )differences where might it end?" )? )I don't see it there and it didn't appear in my e-mail account. The only )place where i can see it is bug- archives: )http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2011-07/msg00375.html )... oh well, i found it. I've disabled receiving e-mails from bug-lilypond, )silly me. I remember now that i did this a long time ago as they seemed )irrelevant to me, and i never noticed the difference... )Ugh. )Still, i think that it'd be better if every message related to a tracker issue )appeared as a comment in the tracker. ) Yes it would be nice, however the tracker doesn't ... err track responses and adds them. So you do have to make sure that an email is from the tracker being updated and not just from someone replying :) I think if you want to make it easier to keep.. err track.. then you could set up a simple email rule looking for specific key words in the subject because if I reply to an email from the tracker vs edit the tracker which sends an email they do contain almost identical strings in the email itself. The main difference is that one will contain 'RE:' or whatever the language for that is. There is you clue also if the response is entered or not. Confused? :) I think the question at hand is: Shouldn't any discussion of issues already on the tracker be done only on the tracker. Janek's problems came from the fact that parts of the discussion were only sent to bug-lilypond and weren't added to the tracker. I think it would be better if everything is on the tracker. Because if someone doesn't reply to a bug-lilypond mail but instead starts a new messags to the same topic it won't be even archived as the same thread. But this has of course to be done manually by anybody posting a comment to an issue. Of course the tracker or mailing list software can't possibly interpret mails and eventually route it to a tracker issue (at least not reliably) ... Best Urs James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
RE: some comments do not appear in the tracker page
Janek, )-Original Message- )From: Janek Warchoł [mailto:lemniskata.bernoull...@gmail.com] )Sent: 29 July 2011 05:49 )To: James Lowe )Cc: lilypond-de...@gnu.org; Lilypond Bugreports )Subject: Re: some comments do not appear in the tracker page ) )James, ) )2011/7/27 James Lowe : )> Janek )> )> )On Behalf Of Janek Warchol: )> )there is a problem with comments in the tracker. At least 2 comments )> )didn't make it to the "changing G clef" issue page: )> )- Trevor's comment from July 26th, containing sentence "The G clef )> font )was changed 18 months or so ago by Carl without all this fuss" )> )- Carls comment, perhaps from July 25th, containing sentence "This )> )proposal was based on Graham's assertion that 2.16 is 10 days away )> from )release" )> )> Are these messages you are missing on the tracker itself (as opposed to )someone just replying to the email that the tracker generates)? ) )Umm, i don't understand what you mean... ) )When you go to )http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1752 ), do you see any message sent by Trevor? For example "I agree. LilyPond )has many glyphs. If we start using overrides to select glyphs with minor )differences where might it end?" )? )I don't see it there and it didn't appear in my e-mail account. The only )place where i can see it is bug- archives: )http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2011-07/msg00375.html )... oh well, i found it. I've disabled receiving e-mails from bug-lilypond, )silly me. I remember now that i did this a long time ago as they seemed )irrelevant to me, and i never noticed the difference... )Ugh . )Still, i think that it'd be better if every message related to a tracker issue )appeared as a comment in the tracker. ) Yes it would be nice, however the tracker doesn't ... err track responses and adds them. So you do have to make sure that an email is from the tracker being updated and not just from someone replying :) I think if you want to make it easier to keep.. err track.. then you could set up a simple email rule looking for specific key words in the subject because if I reply to an email from the tracker vs edit the tracker which sends an email they do contain almost identical strings in the email itself. The main difference is that one will contain 'RE:' or whatever the language for that is. There is you clue also if the response is entered or not. Confused? :) James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
