Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Simon Albrecht]

On 22.07.2016 15:18, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:

It should be written :

{ 4 }


Without the {}, actually. They form a sequential music expression, and 
that step comes only later.



and not:

<>


I agree that it should be corrected. While it works (in an explicitly 
instantiated voice), I don’t think it’s good to showcase this syntax for 
writing a chord.



Examples that follow should also be corrected.


Only so much as to make it consistent: The steps would then be:
1) a single note
2) a chord
3) wrapping both sequentially
4) adding another music expression simultaneously.

Best, Simon

___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

My Dear David,

At the time I started this thread I was 100% sure that you would answer
something like this. ;)
Well, let's try to see former version :
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/essay/building-software, v2.14
says: "f4"
compare to
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/essay/building-software, v2.19
says: "f'4"
Why's that?...


2016-07-22 16:28 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :

> Pierre Perol-Schneider  writes:
>
> > Hi James,
> >
> > Sorry for the misunderstanding.
> > Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?
> >
> > It should be written :
> >
> > { 4 }
> >
> > and not:
> >
> > <>
> >
> > Examples that follow should also be corrected.
>
> Well, "corrected" is a hard word: they work as written and intended.
> The main question I see here is how we should treat "Essay": as an
> authored essay that we only keep compilable, or as something where we
> actually want to keep the _content_ tracking best _current_ practices.
>
> Is it an Urtext or do we not just keep it playable on current
> instruments but rather let it make best use of the state of art?
>
> Bach has written keyboard works where keeping in spirit with the score
> has required contortions and approximations on contemporary instruments
> that became considerably more playable over time.  As opposed to
> historic LilyPond, historic players did not have the luxury of flatly
> stating "syntax error" or "colliding notecolumns cannot be resolved", so
> the historic essay had to make do with historic LilyPond rather than a
> hypothetical idealization.
>
> Should we ask the authors?  Or should we at least change that stuff
> where one would say, as a current-day user of LilyPond, "ew, what?"?
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> ___
> 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: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

But of course.
Sorry for my poor english : \relative c' { \new Voice { <> } }
shows ok (of course) but <> does not.
This essay is really nice, and I want to use it for a presentation. But I
found this particular part unclear.

Cheers,
Pierre


2016-07-22 17:56 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup :

> "Phil Holmes"  writes:
>
> > "Pierre Perol-Schneider"  wrote in
> > message
> > news:caphotuwtxrmr97w5m2ajkt4sudvqdbd93tqudk0vfuogxh0...@mail.gmail.com.
> ..
> >>I clearly understand what you mean.
> >> Thing is that <> does not show what's on the picture (actually
> >> the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <> } } )
>
> It shows exactly what is on the picture.  Have you tried it?
>
> > I think very early versions of LilyPond used << notes >> for chords,
> > not < notes >.  The earliest manual I can find online (1.6) has the
> > latter notation, but it may be that the essay uses the early notation?
>
> I don't think so.  From what I gather, the original syntax would have
> used  for simultaneous music (which gets assembled into a
> chord anyway), then added the chord syntax <>4, then finally
> interchanged <<...>> and <...> in their meaning.
>
> However, <> still remains a valid way to enter music that will
> print as a chord (even though it will internally be represented as a
> SimultanousMusic expression rather than an EventChord, this does not
> affect typesetting).
>
> So the essay is correct here.  It may still look awkward given the
> current alternatives.
>
> --
> David Kastrup
>
> ___
> 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: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Phil Holmes]

"Pierre Perol-Schneider"  wrote in message 
news:caphotuwtxrmr97w5m2ajkt4sudvqdbd93tqudk0vfuogxh0...@mail.gmail.com...

I clearly understand what you mean.
Thing is that <> does not show what's on the picture (actually
the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <> } } )
So I think it is not clear. Maybe this line should simply be deleted and
the next example should be:
\relative { f' <> } (or simply { << g'2 \\ { f'4 <>
} >> } face to what the 'Music representation' starts with).

Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-22 15:40 GMT+02:00 James :


Pierre,


On 22/07/16 14:18, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:


Hi James,

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?



No but the online help is built using LilyPond (these are not static
images). So the result should be the same as what is shown in that link.



It should be written :

{ 4 }

and not:

<>

Examples that follow should also be corrected.



Are you sure?


http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/single-voice#simultaneous-expressions

James



I think very early versions of LilyPond used << notes >> for chords, not < 
notes >.  The earliest manual I can find online (1.6) has the latter 
notation, but it may be that the essay uses the early notation?


--
Phil Holmes



___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

I clearly understand what you mean.
Thing is that <> does not show what's on the picture (actually
the link says: \relative c' { \new Voice { <> } } )
So I think it is not clear. Maybe this line should simply be deleted and
the next example should be:
\relative { f' <> } (or simply { << g'2 \\ { f'4 <>
} >> } face to what the 'Music representation' starts with).

Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-22 15:40 GMT+02:00 James :

> Pierre,
>
>
> On 22/07/16 14:18, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
>
>> Hi James,
>>
>> Sorry for the misunderstanding.
>> Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?
>>
>
> No but the online help is built using LilyPond (these are not static
> images). So the result should be the same as what is shown in that link.
>
>
>> It should be written :
>>
>> { 4 }
>>
>> and not:
>>
>> <>
>>
>> Examples that follow should also be corrected.
>>
>
> Are you sure?
>
>
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/single-voice#simultaneous-expressions
>
> James
>
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[James]

Pierre,


On 22/07/16 14:18, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:

Hi James,

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?


No but the online help is built using LilyPond (these are not static 
images). So the result should be the same as what is shown in that link.




It should be written :

{ 4 }

and not:

<>

Examples that follow should also be corrected.


Are you sure?

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/single-voice#simultaneous-expressions

James

___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

Re: DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

Hi James,

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Have you tried the snippet ? Have you seen the result ?

It should be written :

{ 4 }

and not:

<>

Examples that follow should also be corrected.

Cheers,
Pierre

2016-07-22 14:00 GMT+02:00 James :

> Pierre,
>
>
>
> On 22/07/16 12:46, Pierre Perol-Schneider wrote:
>
>> I'm not top posting.
>>>
>> Hi Bug Squad,
>>
>> See:
>>
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/essay/building-software.html#music-representation
>>
>> I think that this part, especially the chords ('Simultaneous notes'),
>> should be re-written, e.g.:
>>
>>
>> \version "2.19"
>>
>> <>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Pierre
>> ___
>> bug-lilypond mailing list
>> bug-lilypond@gnu.org
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
>>
>>
>> I don't understand your request.
>
> It already says
>
> <>
>
>
>
> Am I misunderstanding the request here or are you asking it to be
> re-written to something else? If so we will need some suggestions
>
> James
>
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond

DOC: Essay, 1.4 Building software

[Pierre Perol-Schneider]

> I'm not top posting.

Hi Bug Squad,

See:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/essay/building-software.html#music-representation

I think that this part, especially the chords ('Simultaneous notes'),
should be re-written, e.g.:


\version "2.19"

<>

Cheers,

Pierre
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond