Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
Eluze elu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:1348959173728-133838.p...@n5.nabble.com... it's a shame - the LSR still works with an old stable version (actual stable is 2.16.0, LSR is 2.14.2) this means - new snippets using newer functions can't be added - old snippets must be convert.ly-ed before you can use them in the stable release is there a way to improve this? Eluze There is the prospect of a 2.16.1 release, so there's not much point in upgrading the LSR before that comes out. -- Phil Holmes Bug Squad ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes: Eluze elu...@gmail.com wrote in message news:1348959173728-133838.p...@n5.nabble.com... it's a shame - the LSR still works with an old stable version (actual stable is 2.16.0, LSR is 2.14.2) this means - new snippets using newer functions can't be added - old snippets must be convert.ly-ed before you can use them in the stable release is there a way to improve this? Eluze There is the prospect of a 2.16.1 release, so there's not much point in upgrading the LSR before that comes out. Huh? 2.16.1 will not have any functional additions. The release or non-release of 2.16.1 is an absolute non-issue here. What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. URL:http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=lilypond URL:http://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lilypond I can't vouch for Fedora since they have made it TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to figure out what versions of software they use. Going on their web page, you get just bounced from one buzzphrase page to another, and I was not going to download a whole distribution iso just to check what versions they might be offering. URL:http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portoverview.py?category=printportname=lilypond 2.16. Ok. Slackware does not appear to offer LilyPond at all. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. [..] bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? What's wrong with bugging them? -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. [..] bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? What's wrong with bugging them? Nothing! I've probably expressed myself not clearly. Shall we have a dedicated person for bugging them all, or maybe you bugged them already? URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686788 URL:http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lilypond/+bug/1047693 Don't know about others. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
Hello, On 30 September 2012 13:39, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote: What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. [..] bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? What's wrong with bugging them? Nothing! I've probably expressed myself not clearly. Shall we have a dedicated person for bugging them all, or maybe you bugged them already? URL:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686788 URL:http://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lilypond/+bug/1047693 Don't know about others. I may be talking in ignorance, but wasn't there an issue with one or two distributions because of Guile 1.8 and 2.0 incompatibilities. I did pester the Ubuntu lists myself when 2.14/5 was out. And someone did repackage something (I seem to recall it was an early 2.12 or a late 2.10 in the repository until recently). James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
[musicxml2ly] wrong durations in chorded notes with time-modifications
Hey all,
Sibelius 7.0.0 exports wrong duration values for chorded notes in tuplets. The
exported value in this example
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrvdabwym9tezd0/time-modification_and_chorded_notes.xml)
is 256 instead of 170 for a quarter note in a triplet of eighths
(divisions256/divisions). durations170/durations is not an optimal
value for a quarter note in a triplet of eighths as there is a rounding
difference (256*2/3=170....). The same holds for an eighth note in a
triplet of eighths (128*2/3=85.... instead of 86 used here). musicxml2ly
does not like rounding errors. The resulting LilyPond-code contains wild
scaling durations and a superfluous spacer rest:
\times 2/3 { c'' a'4*255/256 s512*43 r8*129/128 } r4 r2 }
This is bad because we have a bar check problem here!
Sometimes music applications export suboptimal/false values for divisions and
durations.
A solution: musicxml2ly should recalculate all durations on the basis of a
divisions value of 6720. This figure is divisible without remainder by e.g.
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16, 32, 64 and therefore can provide for note durations up
to 256th. A quarter note (6720) in a triplet of eighths would have a value of
4480 (6720*2/3). An eighth note (6720/2=3360) in a triplet of eighths would
have a value of 2240 (3360*2/3). (half note: 6720*2 = 13440.)
hth
patrick
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: [musicxml2ly] unwanted staves and voices [was: missing voice-element in chorded note leads to unwanted additional staff]
My test files obviously got lost. :(
Am 29.09.2012 um 14:24 schrieb pls:
Sorry, this is killing me. :(
Am 29.09.2012 um 13:19 schrieb pls:
Am 28.09.2012 um 12:09 schrieb pls:
A note-element containing a chord/- and a staff-element but no
voice-element causes an additional empty staff above the defined one.
Tiny example:
missing_voice-element_in_a_chorded_note_leads_to_empty_second_staff.xml
(unwanted) result:
missing_voice-element_in_a_chorded_note_leads_to_empty_second_staff.png
The wrong MusicXML-markup was caused by Sibelius 7.0.0.
In this case musicxml2ly puts the chorded note without a voice-element in
an own voice (PartPOneVoiceNone) instead of placing the notes in a chord
construct ( a' c''1) in the same voice. She also surrounds the \context
Staff block by an additional \new Staff block which causes the additional
staff.
musicxml2ly should be taught to be tolerant and automatically assign notes
containing chord/-elements to the voice of the first note of the chord.
(This first note does not contain a chord/-element.)
Hm, the above obviously seems to tell only half the story: Without a
staff-element the .xml-file does NOT cause an additional empty staff above
the normal one even though two voices are exported and the \context Staff
block is surrounded by a \new Staff block. So this means that I have to
correct myself. There are two issues involved here:
1) if an .xml file contains only staff elements with value 1 (i.e.
staff1/staff) musicxml2ly erroneously thinks that there are several
staves.
This bug is even more complicated and it seems to interact with the issue
described below:
if an .xml file contains only staff elements with value 1 (i.e.
staff1/staff) AND no voice element in a chorded note musicxml2ly
erroneously thinks that there are several staves. (I haven't tested what
happens when there are several staff elements with different values in an
.xml fle.
Test file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9mt7iqd38lqqng/unwanted_staves.xml
The result is:
\new Staff
\context Staff =1
\context Voice = PartPOneVoiceOne { \voiceOne
\PartPOneVoiceOne }
\context Voice = PartPOneVoiceNone { \voiceTwo
\PartPOneVoiceNone }
This leads to a second unwanted empty staff.
Without any staff element in the .xml file the result is:
\new Staff
\context Staff
\context Voice = PartPOneVoiceOne { \voiceOne
\PartPOneVoiceOne }
\context Voice = PartPOneVoiceNone { \voiceTwo
\PartPOneVoiceNone }
and there is NO unwanted additional staff!
In this case musicxml2ly should be taught to ignore the element value if
there is only one staff.
2) if a note element contains a chord/ element but no voice element
musicxml2ly puts the chorded note without a voice-element in an own voice
(PartPOneVoiceNone) instead of placing the notes in a chord construct ( a'
c''1) in the same voice.
In this case musicxml2ly should be taught to be tolerant and automatically
assign notes containing chord/-elements to the voice of the first note of
the chord. (In MusicXML the first note of a chord does not contain a
chord/-element.)
Test file:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8bep4ly69xfwfmt/unwanted_voices.xml
hth
patrick
___
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
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
NR 3.5.7: the articulate script: why not suggesting two \score blocks?
In NR 3.5.7, The Articulate script: After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily altered, but the standard \midi block will produce a better MIDI file. This alteration refers to the use of \unfoldRepeats, I suppose. Why don't we suggest to use two score blocks, one for \layout and one for \midi? So the visual output won't be altered. There's any reason why you didn't make this suggestion? -- Federico ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: LSR is not at the stable release level
I can't vouch for Fedora since they have made it TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to figure out what versions of software they use. Going on their web page, you get just bounced from one buzzphrase page to another, and I was not going to download a whole distribution iso just to check what versions they might be offering. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/lilypond.git/log/ says 2.16.0 Cheers, Jean-Charles ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: NR 3.5.7: the articulate script: why not suggesting two \score blocks?
2012/9/30 Federico Bruni fedel...@gmail.com: In NR 3.5.7, The Articulate script: After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily altered, but the standard \midi block will produce a better MIDI file. This alteration refers to the use of \unfoldRepeats, I suppose. Not only because of \unfoldRepeats. To achieve a non-legato from plain notes, silences are inserted in every note. Why don't we suggest to use two score blocks, one for \layout and one for \midi? So the visual output won't be altered. There's any reason why you didn't make this suggestion? Because I did a skeletonic documentation and did not elaborate or improve it since then. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Quoting music in ly:book-process
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
you might consider rephrasing the ly:make-book
call as #{ \book { ... } #} as well, peeling off another Scheme layer
and leaving just ly:book-process.
Thanks! That did the trick. I'm glad to see this code works in 2.16.0; putting
\score inside of a scheme expression was giving me errors in 2.14.2
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Quoting music in ly:book-process
Mark Witmer mark.d.wit...@gmail.com writes:
David Kastrup dak at gnu.org writes:
you might consider rephrasing the ly:make-book
call as #{ \book { ... } #} as well, peeling off another Scheme layer
and leaving just ly:book-process.
Thanks! That did the trick. I'm glad to see this code works in 2.16.0;
putting \score inside of a scheme expression was giving me errors in
2.14.2
Yes, it would.
From
URL:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/changes/index.html
The construct #{ … #} can now be used not just for constructing
sequential music lists, but also for pitches (distinguished from
single note events by the absence of a duration or other information
that can’t be part of a pitch), single music events, void music
expressions, post events, markups (mostly freeing users from having
to use the markup macro), markup lists, number expressions, context
definitions and modifications, and a few other things. If it
encloses nothing or only a single music event, it no longer returns
a sequential music list but rather a void music expression or just
the music event itself, respectively.
Granted, books and scores are not listed explicitly but rather as and a
few other things. Perhaps a bit reckless.
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
