Re: barNumberCheck broken in LilyPond 2.19.22
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2015-07-03 21:07 GMT+02:00 markdblackwell :
>>
>> \version "2.19.18" % Please ignore this version number!
>> notes = {
>> c'2 d'
>> \barNumberCheck #3
>> }
>> \book {
>> \bookOutputName "barNumberCheck-tiny-example-test"
>> \score {
>> \notes
>> \layout { }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I'm using Windows XP.
>
>
>
> Confirmed on Linux.
>
> Seems the call for (*location*) inside (make-music 'ApplyContext
> 'procedure ...) doesn't work.
>
> As workaround use:
>
> barNumberCheck =
> #(define-music-function (n) (integer?)
>(_i "Print a warning if the current bar number is not @var{n}.")
>(let ((location (*location*)))
>;(display "location: ")(display (*location*))
> (make-music 'ApplyContext
> 'procedure
> (lambda (c)
>(let ((cbn (ly:context-property c 'currentBarNumber)))
>;(display "location: ")(display (*location*))
> (if (and (number? cbn) (not (= cbn n)))
> (ly:input-warning location
>"Barcheck failed got ~a expect ~a"
>cbn n)))
Three possible fixes for that. Your fix is the straightforward one but
only covers this particular case. A somewhat more obscure fix would be
to have Apply_context_iterator pick off 'origin from the music and put
it in %location when calling its procedure.
The overkill solution would be to have iterators generally be called
with the %location setting from the respective music.
I have to admit that I'm leaning towards the last solution. However, we
have had a few regressions in 2.19.22. If Phil was thinking about
rolling 2.19.23 this weekend, I'd probably roll in your local fix (and
see whether we have similar cases elsewhere) and leave the more invasive
change for proper review/discussion for later.
--
David Kastrup
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: barNumberCheck broken in LilyPond 2.19.22
2015-07-03 21:07 GMT+02:00 markdblackwell :
> If a user passes a wrong bar number to \barNumberCheck, LilyPond 2.19.22
> produces a Scheme error:
>
>>lilypond tiny-example.ly
> GNU LilyPond 2.19.22
> Processing `tiny-example.ly'
> Parsing...
> Interpreting
> music...C:/progra/lilypond/current/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:220:24:
> In procedure ly:input-warning in expression (ly:input-warning (*location*)
> "Barcheck failed got ~a expect ~a" ...):
> C:/progra/lilypond/current/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:220:24:
> Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Input): #f
>
> Tiny-example.ly contains the following code:
>
> \version "2.19.18" % Please ignore this version number!
> notes = {
> c'2 d'
> \barNumberCheck #3
> }
> \book {
> \bookOutputName "barNumberCheck-tiny-example-test"
> \score {
> \notes
> \layout { }
> }
> }
>
> I'm using Windows XP.
Confirmed on Linux.
Seems the call for (*location*) inside (make-music 'ApplyContext
'procedure ...) doesn't work.
As workaround use:
barNumberCheck =
#(define-music-function (n) (integer?)
(_i "Print a warning if the current bar number is not @var{n}.")
(let ((location (*location*)))
;(display "location: ")(display (*location*))
(make-music 'ApplyContext
'procedure
(lambda (c)
(let ((cbn (ly:context-property c 'currentBarNumber)))
;(display "location: ")(display (*location*))
(if (and (number? cbn) (not (= cbn n)))
(ly:input-warning location
"Barcheck failed got ~a expect ~a"
cbn n)))
Cheers,
Harm
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
barNumberCheck broken in LilyPond 2.19.22
If a user passes a wrong bar number to \barNumberCheck, LilyPond 2.19.22
produces a Scheme error:
>lilypond tiny-example.ly
GNU LilyPond 2.19.22
Processing `tiny-example.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting
music...C:/progra/lilypond/current/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:220:24:
In procedure ly:input-warning in expression (ly:input-warning (*location*)
"Barcheck failed got ~a expect ~a" ...):
C:/progra/lilypond/current/usr/share/lilypond/current/ly/music-functions-init.ly:220:24:
Wrong type argument in position 1 (expecting Input): #f
Tiny-example.ly contains the following code:
\version "2.19.18" % Please ignore this version number!
notes = {
c'2 d'
\barNumberCheck #3
}
\book {
\bookOutputName "barNumberCheck-tiny-example-test"
\score {
\notes
\layout { }
}
}
I'm using Windows XP.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/barNumberCheck-broken-in-LilyPond-2-19-22-tp178423.html
Sent from the Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: inconspicuous ties
On Jun 30, 2015, at 08:47 , Dan Eble wrote:
> On Jun 30, 2015, at 04:41 , Federico Bruni wrote:
>> Il giorno mar 30 giu 2015 alle 1:12, Dan Eble ha scritto:
>>> %% This tie is nearly invisible before the line break.
>>> \score {{ r2 f'8 f' f' f'~ \break | f'2 r }}
>>
>> I believe that this is issue 14?
>> https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=14
>
> Not exactly. My complaint is not that the tie is too short, but that it is
> too close to a staff line. The examples in that ticket focus on intra-chord
> ties, but my example focuses on a line break.
I found an even simpler example:
\version "2.19.22"
{ f' \laissezVibrer }
Gould p. 73 has an l.v. tie on a note in the same staff position. I think it
is clearer than the LilyPond output because the tips to not touch the staff
line.
—
Dan
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Enhancement: expanded Woodwind diagrams
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:20 PM, N. Andrew Walsh wrote: > The fingering diagrams for woodwinds are excellent. I'd like to request > that > they be expanded/improved, with several likely candidates: Greetings, Andrew - This has been submitted as Issue 4477 : https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4477 Ralph ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: autochange looks ahead by only one rest
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Dan Eble wrote: > The Notation Reference says that \autochange "looks ahead skipping over > rests to switch in advance” and provides an example with a single rest. > When there are multiple rests, it doesn’t move them all, which seems like a > bug based on the NR. > > I’ve prepared a patch to change this, but I haven’t created a ticket > because I am not certain that it is a bug. I’ve never used autochange and > have no plans to use it; what do others think? > > https://codereview.appspot.com/247370043/ > See auto-change.ly for sample input. > Greetings, Dan - I haven't used \autochange, either, but it sounds like a bug to me. This has been submitted as issue 4476 : https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4476 Ralph ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
