Re: Notation Reference 1.2.3, Unmetered music: cadenza and bars
Il 31/12/2012 21:47, Helge Kruse ha scritto: Am 31.12.2012 18:53, schrieb Federico Bruni: A new bar is never started within a cadenza, even if one or more \bar commands are inserted within it. Therefore, reminder accidentals will need to be added manually. See Accidentals. So what's the point of that sentence? The sentence tells us the handling of accidentals. Usually an accidental is valid until the end of bar. When you are in a cadenza the issuing of a \bar does not terminate the accidental. Without the cadenza you would get an accidental of the nineth note. Helge Ok, I see now. Thanks -- Federico ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Notation Reference 1.2.3, Unmetered music: cadenza and bars
Il 01/01/2013 09:19, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Il 31/12/2012 21:47, Helge Kruse ha scritto: Am 31.12.2012 18:53, schrieb Federico Bruni: A new bar is never started within a cadenza, even if one or more \bar commands are inserted within it. Therefore, reminder accidentals will need to be added manually. See Accidentals. So what's the point of that sentence? The sentence tells us the handling of accidentals. Usually an accidental is valid until the end of bar. When you are in a cadenza the issuing of a \bar does not terminate the accidental. Without the cadenza you would get an accidental of the nineth note. Helge Ok, I see now. Thanks Bug Squad Perhaps adding a sentence would make this part straightforward to people ignorant in music notation as me. Paragraph Accidental in chapter 1 doesn't say that usually an accidental is valid until the end of the bar. I would write: Inserting a \bar within a cadenza does not start a new bar, even if a bar line is printed. Therefore the accidental - which is usually valid until the end of the bar - will still be valid after the bar line printed by \bar. If you want to display the alteration, you'll have to use reminder accidentals. Adding a comment in the example would be a plus: @lilypond[verbatim,relative=2,quote] c4 d e d \cadenzaOn cis4 d cis d \bar | % First cis is printed without alteration even if it's after a bar cis4 d cis! d \cadenzaOff \bar | @end lilypond And maybe making all bar numbers visible can be useful even in this example. Thanks -- Federico ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: NR 1.2.3 Upbeats: confusing explanation of measurePosition
Eluze elu...@gmail.com writes: Am 01.01.2013 00:36, schrieb David Kastrup: Eluze elu...@gmail.com writes: the sentence The property measurePosition contains a rational number indicating … is confusing indeed - where is a rational number? Moment is generally misused in LilyPond for rationals since the C++ type Rational has no Scheme-accessible equivalent and the obvious equivalent of Scheme rationals was not around at the time Moment was concocted. thanks for the rationale for the use of /rational /in this context - it's far beyond my horizon Yes, this would warrant cleaning up eventually. as a simple user I wish only to know which numbers I may use with the function ly:make-moment (to define the property measurePosition ) - without running into problemsof any kind! Two integers (for numerator and denominator of a main moment fraction), or four integers (the same with grace timing), or one rational (for the main moment) or two rationals (for main and grace moment). If you think that two integers and two rationals can't be told apart, you'd be right, but denominators are always positive and grace timings are always non-positive. So basically everything that you'd think should work with ly:make-moment will. I'd prefer using rationals myself. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
