Re: Possible bug(s) with vertical alignment on Dynamics staff
2018-08-31 16:14 GMT+02:00 Peter Toye : > In a dynamic staff there aren't engraved notes to attach the text to. My > issue (which I wasn't 100% clear about) is that dynamics and text are treated > differently - dynamics ( s2\p ) appear to be centred on the staff (at least, > they're half-way between the two piano staves) and text is either raised or > lowered. In this context, #CENTER would have a legitimate meaning. I don't see any good in special-casing "-" for Dynamics-context. The main reason why DynamicText and TextScript behave different is the different procedure used to calculate the Y-offset. DynamicText uses `(scale-by-font-size -0.6)` to calculate the Y-offset. You'll find it in define-grobs.scm, the definition of `scale-by-font-size` in output-lib.scm. Using this for both works here: \new Dynamics \with { \override TextScript.Y-offset = #(scale-by-font-size -0.6) } { s2^\p s2_\markup \dynamic "p" s2^\markup { ggTT \dynamic "p" } } Cheers, Harm ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug(s) with vertical alignment on Dynamics staff
Hi Malte, Thanks very much for this.I'd not read your comment - I've not had a Lilypond Digest yet today so didn't know you'd commented. Your answer below is far fuller. My comments are inserted into it. Sorry for my ignorance - I don't use LP much and this is the first time I've had to tweak anything seriously. Best regards, Peter mailto:lilyp...@ptoye.com www.ptoye.com - Friday, August 31, 2018, 2:03:59 PM, Malte Meyn wrote: > Hi Peter, > have you read my latest answer on the user list? > (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-08/msg00412.html) > Am 31.08.18 um 13:36 schrieb Peter Toye: >> 1. Just inserting the text by attaching it to a silent note using "^" or "_" >> works as expected. See examples 1 & 2 > I suppose that’s not one of your “possible bugs”, is it? ;) Err No :)> I included them to use as comparisons to the other three. >> 2. Trying "-" is the same as "_". This isn't documented, and probably >> shouldn't be. But it would be useful to have this syntax for horizontally >> aligned text. See example 3. > _ and ^ set the direction property of an Event (in this case a > TextScriptEvent) to #DOWN and #UP. “-” doesn’t > set it at all—this means > that LilyPond decides whether to set it down or up depending on > different things (type of grob, voice direction in polyphony, …). Your > suggestion would mean that “-” sets the > direction to #CENTER. This isn’t > supported at the moment, it’ll throw an error (you can try that: > \override TextScript.direction = #CENTER). > Now what should #CENTER behave like? If there > is some space like in your > example, your suggestion is legitimate IMO. But in most cases one has > only two options, up and down (f. e. think of > articulations). Letting > “-” set the direction to #CENTER, even if > #CENTER would mean “automatic > default behaviour” would be wrong because > direction information coming > from \voiceX commands would be overridden. In a dynamic staff there aren't engraved notes to attach the text to. My issue (which I wasn't 100% clear about) is that dynamics and text are treated differently - dynamics ( s2\p ) appear to be centred on the staff (at least, they're half-way between the two piano staves) and text is either raised or lowered. In this context, #CENTER would have a legitimate meaning. Or are the dynamics shifted and the text centered? Not easy to tell. >> 3. Tweaking the Y-offset by 0.0 using "_" appears to change it to having >> used "^" if you see what I mean. Example 4. Tweaking it to -0.6 gives the >> result I want. Example 5. > The Y-offset is calculated (see my answer to 4. below) depending on > different things including the 'direction > property. So if you tweak the > Y-offset, the direction will be ignored (at > least for the positioning > question). I didn't know that. Thanks. >> 4. In the Internals manual, the unit for the Y-offset property is not >> mentioned. This wastes a lot of time in experimentation, especially given >> issue 3! > What do you mean by unit? Yes, the IR > (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/user-backend-properties) > doesn’t say whether Y-offset is measured in staff-spaces, half > staff-spaces or some different unit. But I > suppose you mean “value” > here? That value is calculated by a procedure that uses information > about the context (type of grob, neighbouring > grobs, font sizes, line > breaks, voice direction, …). That’s why the manual cannot give the > default value as a number—there is no such > thing as a default value. I meant the unit (staff-spaces, etc.). Without knowing that, it's not exactly easy to work out what value to insert to shift the text by the amount needed. Hence my comment on experimentation. Maybe it's a documentation bug. > I hope I made clear what the problems are here. > If not, just ask ;) (And > have a look at the \offset command I mentioned on the user list :)) You've pointed out the problems, but not of course the answer to my new point on number 2. I shall look at \offset. It's not mentioned in the Learning manual at all. Thanks again. > Cheers, > Malte > ___ > 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: Possible bug(s) with vertical alignment on Dynamics staff
Hi Peter, have you read my latest answer on the user list? (https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2018-08/msg00412.html) Am 31.08.18 um 13:36 schrieb Peter Toye: 1. Just inserting the text by attaching it to a silent note using "^" or "_" works as expected. See examples 1 & 2 I suppose that’s not one of your “possible bugs”, is it? ;) 2. Trying "-" is the same as "_". This isn't documented, and probably shouldn't be. But it would be useful to have this syntax for horizontally aligned text. See example 3. _ and ^ set the direction property of an Event (in this case a TextScriptEvent) to #DOWN and #UP. “-” doesn’t set it at all—this means that LilyPond decides whether to set it down or up depending on different things (type of grob, voice direction in polyphony, …). Your suggestion would mean that “-” sets the direction to #CENTER. This isn’t supported at the moment, it’ll throw an error (you can try that: \override TextScript.direction = #CENTER). Now what should #CENTER behave like? If there is some space like in your example, your suggestion is legitimate IMO. But in most cases one has only two options, up and down (f. e. think of articulations). Letting “-” set the direction to #CENTER, even if #CENTER would mean “automatic default behaviour” would be wrong because direction information coming from \voiceX commands would be overridden. 3. Tweaking the Y-offset by 0.0 using "_" appears to change it to having used "^" if you see what I mean. Example 4. Tweaking it to -0.6 gives the result I want. Example 5. The Y-offset is calculated (see my answer to 4. below) depending on different things including the 'direction property. So if you tweak the Y-offset, the direction will be ignored (at least for the positioning question). 4. In the Internals manual, the unit for the Y-offset property is not mentioned. This wastes a lot of time in experimentation, especially given issue 3! What do you mean by unit? Yes, the IR (http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/user-backend-properties) doesn’t say whether Y-offset is measured in staff-spaces, half staff-spaces or some different unit. But I suppose you mean “value” here? That value is calculated by a procedure that uses information about the context (type of grob, neighbouring grobs, font sizes, line breaks, voice direction, …). That’s why the manual cannot give the default value as a number—there is no such thing as a default value. I hope I made clear what the problems are here. If not, just ask ;) (And have a look at the \offset command I mentioned on the user list :)) Cheers, Malte ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug: avoid-slur and TrillSpanners
Hello, On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:26:50 -0700, Knute Snortum wrote: > In this example... > > %%% Start > \version "2.19.81" > \language "english" > > { > \override TrillSpanner.avoid-slur = #'inside > \override TrillSpanner.outside-staff-priority = ##f > c''1( | c''2. \startTrillSpan c''4 \stopTrillSpan | c''1) | > } > %%% End > > ...the slur doesn't avoid the trill spanner. > > > --- > Knute Snortum > (via Gmail) Added as https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5313/ James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug: avoid-slur and TrillSpanners
On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 10:54 AM, James Lowe wrote: > Knute > > On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:26:50 -0700, Knute Snortum > wrote: > > > In this example... > > > > %%% Start > > \version "2.19.81" > > \language "english" > > > > { > > \override TrillSpanner.avoid-slur = #'inside > > \override TrillSpanner.outside-staff-priority = ##f > > c''1( | c''2. \startTrillSpan c''4 \stopTrillSpan | c''1) | > > } > > %%% End > > > > ...the slur doesn't avoid the trill spanner. > > > > > > Is this https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/397 ? > > Regards > > James > I don't think so. This has to do with TrillSpanner.avoid-slur, not a pitched trill. --- Knute Snortum (via Gmail) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug: avoid-slur and TrillSpanners
Knute On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 06:26:50 -0700, Knute Snortum wrote: > In this example... > > %%% Start > \version "2.19.81" > \language "english" > > { > \override TrillSpanner.avoid-slur = #'inside > \override TrillSpanner.outside-staff-priority = ##f > c''1( | c''2. \startTrillSpan c''4 \stopTrillSpan | c''1) | > } > %%% End > > ...the slur doesn't avoid the trill spanner. > > Is this https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/397 ? Regards James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
Simon Albrecht writes: > Hello Mats, > > IIUC \partial serves to insert an additional amount of time, Nope. > however in this example we actually need to skip a beat – thus call > \partial with a negative duration, which is impossible :-) So you need > to insert \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3/4) before the > second bar in your example. Is this documented differently? Yes. Manually setting Timing.measureLength should never be required. \partial does pretty much the same except with some synchronization in order to work sensibly with multiple occurences of \partial while still warning about bad uses. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
Mats, Here's a workaround, although I bet you already have one: \relative c'{ \time 2/4 \partial 4 c4 | d8 e f g | f4*2 \bar "||" \time 3/4 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. } Trevor > > My apologies for spamming the mailing list. After some more trials, I > realize that the problem remains even if I write \partial after \time. > Still, the problem only appears with multimeasure rests, as the two > following examples illustrate: > > \version "2.19.25" > % Working example > \relative c'{ > \time 2/4 > \partial 4 > c4 | > d8 e f g | > f4 > \bar "||" > \time 3/4 > \partial 4*0 > %R2.*3 | > f4 ( a f ) | > f2. > } > > % Failing example > \relative c'{ > \time 2/4 > \partial 4 > c4 | > d8 e f g | > f4 > \bar "||" > \time 3/4 > \partial 4*0 > R2.*3 | > f4 ( a f ) | > f2. > } > > >/Mats > > > > > > ___ > 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: Possible bug with new \partial
Mats Bengtsson, you wrote Sunday, August 16, 2015 9:55 PM Subject: Re: Possible bug with new \partial > My apologies for spamming the mailing list. After some more trials, I > realize that the problem remains even if I write \partial after \time. > Still, the problem only appears with multimeasure rests, as the two > following examples illustrate: > > \version "2.19.25" > % Working example > \relative c'{ > \time 2/4 > \partial 4 > c4 | > d8 e f g | > f4 > \bar "||" > \time 3/4 > \partial 4*0 > %R2.*3 | > f4 ( a f ) | > f2. > } > > % Failing example > \relative c'{ > \time 2/4 > \partial 4 > c4 | > d8 e f g | > f4 > \bar "||" > \time 3/4 > \partial 4*0 > R2.*3 | > f4 ( a f ) | > f2. > } Thanks Mats. Nice to see you're still in the pond! https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4567 Trevor ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
Am 16.08.2015 um 22:32 schrieb Mats Bengtsson: On 08/16/2015 10:05 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: Hello Mats, IIUC \partial serves to insert an additional amount of time, however in this example we actually need to skip a beat – thus call \partial with a negative duration, which is impossible :-) So you need to insert \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3/4) before the second bar in your example. Is this documented differently? Else I wouldn’t consider it a bug, rather an inherent limitation. Please note that \partial has been changed very recently in the 2.19 versions. The documentation for 2.19.25, http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/displaying-rhythms#index-_005cpartial-1 says that the duration specifies the remaining length of the current measure, which in my example is zero. You’re right of course. I should’ve looked there. Note also that my example works fine if I remove the R2*3 line directly below \time 3/4. Not quite: no (default) bar line is drawn. Apparently, the crucial sentence is the last one in the NR section: ‘The |\partial| command sets the |Timing.measurePosition| property, which is a rational number that indicates how much of the measure has passed.’ I had tried to set measurePosition directly, but when used immediately before the new \time, neither 0 nor 4/4 worked as values. What does work as expected is inserting \partial 2. at the beginning of bar 2, so probably we should document that the ‘remaining length of the current measure’ given through \partial can’t be zero. Yours, Simon /Mats Yours, Simon Am 16.08.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Mats Bengtsson: Hi, I tried version 2.19.25 to typeset a piece that changes from 4/4 with an upbeat to 3/4 without an upbeat, in the middle of the piece. The new \partial handling worked for all parts, except a part that started with a multimeasure rest. Here's a small example illustrating the problem. Uncommenting the \bar line makes things slightly better but still wrong. \version "2.19.25" \relative c'{ \time 4/4 \partial 4 c | d e f g | f2. %\bar "||" \partial 4*0 \time 3/4 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. R2.*3 | } /Mats ___ 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: Possible bug with new \partial
My apologies for spamming the mailing list. After some more trials, I realize that the problem remains even if I write \partial after \time. Still, the problem only appears with multimeasure rests, as the two following examples illustrate: \version "2.19.25" % Working example \relative c'{ \time 2/4 \partial 4 c4 | d8 e f g | f4 \bar "||" \time 3/4 \partial 4*0 %R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. } % Failing example \relative c'{ \time 2/4 \partial 4 c4 | d8 e f g | f4 \bar "||" \time 3/4 \partial 4*0 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. } /Mats ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
I just realized that if i swap \partial and \time, it works as expected, at least if I explicitly specify the bar line: \version "2.19.25" \relative c'{ \time 4/4 \partial 4 c | d e f g | f2. \bar "||" %Removing this line still gives ugly collisions! \time 3/4 \partial 4*3 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. R2.*3 | } In a way, this is logical, since the \partial relates to the new time signature, not the previous one. Still, I'm confused that the problem only showed up when using a multimeasure rest directly after the \partial. /Mats On 08/16/2015 10:32 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote: On 08/16/2015 10:05 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: Hello Mats, IIUC \partial serves to insert an additional amount of time, however in this example we actually need to skip a beat – thus call \partial with a negative duration, which is impossible :-) So you need to insert \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3/4) before the second bar in your example. Is this documented differently? Else I wouldn’t consider it a bug, rather an inherent limitation. Please note that \partial has been changed very recently in the 2.19 versions. The documentation for 2.19.25, http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/displaying-rhythms#index-_005cpartial-1 says that the duration specifies the remaining length of the current measure, which in my example is zero. Note also that my example works fine if I remove the R2*3 line directly below \time 3/4. /Mats Yours, Simon Am 16.08.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Mats Bengtsson: Hi, I tried version 2.19.25 to typeset a piece that changes from 4/4 with an upbeat to 3/4 without an upbeat, in the middle of the piece. The new \partial handling worked for all parts, except a part that started with a multimeasure rest. Here's a small example illustrating the problem. Uncommenting the \bar line makes things slightly better but still wrong. \version "2.19.25" \relative c'{ \time 4/4 \partial 4 c | d e f g | f2. %\bar "||" \partial 4*0 \time 3/4 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. R2.*3 | } /Mats ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing School of Electrical Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se WWW: http://www.ee.kth.se/~mabe = ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
On 08/16/2015 10:05 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: Hello Mats, IIUC \partial serves to insert an additional amount of time, however in this example we actually need to skip a beat – thus call \partial with a negative duration, which is impossible :-) So you need to insert \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3/4) before the second bar in your example. Is this documented differently? Else I wouldn’t consider it a bug, rather an inherent limitation. Please note that \partial has been changed very recently in the 2.19 versions. The documentation for 2.19.25, http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/displaying-rhythms#index-_005cpartial-1 says that the duration specifies the remaining length of the current measure, which in my example is zero. Note also that my example works fine if I remove the R2*3 line directly below \time 3/4. /Mats Yours, Simon Am 16.08.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Mats Bengtsson: Hi, I tried version 2.19.25 to typeset a piece that changes from 4/4 with an upbeat to 3/4 without an upbeat, in the middle of the piece. The new \partial handling worked for all parts, except a part that started with a multimeasure rest. Here's a small example illustrating the problem. Uncommenting the \bar line makes things slightly better but still wrong. \version "2.19.25" \relative c'{ \time 4/4 \partial 4 c | d e f g | f2. %\bar "||" \partial 4*0 \time 3/4 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. R2.*3 | } /Mats ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing School of Electrical Engineering Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: mats.bengts...@ee.kth.se WWW: http://www.ee.kth.se/~mabe = ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with new \partial
Hello Mats, IIUC \partial serves to insert an additional amount of time, however in this example we actually need to skip a beat – thus call \partial with a negative duration, which is impossible :-) So you need to insert \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 3/4) before the second bar in your example. Is this documented differently? Else I wouldn’t consider it a bug, rather an inherent limitation. Yours, Simon Am 16.08.2015 um 21:28 schrieb Mats Bengtsson: Hi, I tried version 2.19.25 to typeset a piece that changes from 4/4 with an upbeat to 3/4 without an upbeat, in the middle of the piece. The new \partial handling worked for all parts, except a part that started with a multimeasure rest. Here's a small example illustrating the problem. Uncommenting the \bar line makes things slightly better but still wrong. \version "2.19.25" \relative c'{ \time 4/4 \partial 4 c | d e f g | f2. %\bar "||" \partial 4*0 \time 3/4 R2.*3 | f4 ( a f ) | f2. R2.*3 | } /Mats ___ 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: Possible bug: using articulate.ly, acciaccatura, and \barNumberCheck
On 06/05/15 18:54, Knute Snortum wrote: > I have a possible bug here. This may be another "Yeah, we know there are > problems with acciaccatura." > > When using articulate.ly and \barNumberCheck, you can get into a pickle > where the bar check never reports correctly. In my sample, the bar number > should be bar 3, but you get a warning saying it's bar 2. Strangely, when > you change it to bar two, it says it got bar 3. > > Here is my sample with a couple bars before for context. > > \version "2.19.19" > \language "english" > \include "articulate.ly" > > rh = \relative c'' { > \time 3/4 > 2. \prall | > R1 * 3/4 \fermataMarkup | > > % --- The following gets an error: Barcheck failed > \barNumberCheck #3 > << { \acciaccatura { e'16 f } g8 f16 e e8 e e e } > \\ > { \grace { s8 } c2. } > >> | > } > > lh = \relative c, { > \time 3/4 > \clef bass > 2. | > R1 * 3/4 \fermataMarkup | > > \barNumberCheck #3 > 4 q q | > } > > \score { > \articulate << > \new PianoStaff << > \new Staff \rh > \new Staff \lh > >> > >> > \layout { > } > \midi { > } > } > > Knute Snortum > (via Gmail) > ___ Thanks. This has been raised as https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4391 James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
James writes: > On 02/06/14 17:38, David Kastrup wrote: >> Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains >> incorrect. >> >> Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed >> want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord. But >> they are valid nevertheless. >> > Does that mean using << >> without the \\ is acceptable or just an > unfortunate side effect of (for want of a better phrase) not being more > strict when parsing << >> without the \\? Historically, there were \sequential { music list } \simultaneous { music list } first. Then easier to type equivalents { music list } and < music list > came. Then chord notation was introduced as << chord constituents >> and finally, there was the big change of swapping the syntax for chords and for simultaneous music. Quite later \\ was introduced as a shortcut for parallel voices. Since we are obviously also using << >> in constructs like \new StaffGroup << \new Staff ... \new Staff ... >> This is not just a side effect. It is the principal mode of operation. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
On 02/06/14 17:38, David Kastrup wrote: > Urs Liska writes: > >> Am 02.06.2014 09:51, schrieb Brian Eve: >>> \version "2.18.2-1" >>> >>> { >>> \clef bass >>> \compressFullBarRests >>> \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 >>>R1*6 >>> << g4. e >> << f d >> <> >>>a1 >>>R1*6 >>> << b8 e8 >> >>>r8 r4 r2 >>>R1*6 >>>R1 >>>r >>>R >>> } >> No, that's very wrong code. >> >> With these << >> you are actually telling LilyPond to print >> independent voices while you want to write chords. > No, he doesn't. << >> does not imply multiple voices unless you use \\ > inside. It's less readable notation than proper chords like > >4. 4 > > but it leads to the same events being processed (and consequently the > same result being engraved) even though the music expression itself is > different. > >> This may work in your example but you would definitely run into >> problems very soon. > Not really. > >> But I assume this is not what you _want_ - you will want to have the >> polyphonic part with independent stems. > Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains > incorrect. > > Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed > want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord. But > they are valid nevertheless. > Does that mean using << >> without the \\ is acceptable or just an unfortunate side effect of (for want of a better phrase) not being more strict when parsing << >> without the \\? James ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
Urs Liska writes: > Am 02.06.2014 09:51, schrieb Brian Eve: >> \version "2.18.2-1" >> >> { >> \clef bass >> \compressFullBarRests >> \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 >>R1*6 >> << g4. e >> << f d >> <> >>a1 >>R1*6 >> << b8 e8 >> >>r8 r4 r2 >>R1*6 >>R1 >>r >>R >> } > > No, that's very wrong code. > > With these << >> you are actually telling LilyPond to print > independent voices while you want to write chords. No, he doesn't. << >> does not imply multiple voices unless you use \\ inside. It's less readable notation than proper chords like 4. 4 but it leads to the same events being processed (and consequently the same result being engraved) even though the music expression itself is different. > This may work in your example but you would definitely run into > problems very soon. Not really. > But I assume this is not what you _want_ - you will want to have the > polyphonic part with independent stems. Yes, that's plausible, but your above reasoning about << >> remains incorrect. Things are more readable if you revert to << >> only when you indeed want parallel voices rather than just multiple notes in a chord. But they are valid nevertheless. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
Am 02.06.2014 09:51, schrieb Brian Eve: \version "2.18.2-1" { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 R1*6 <> << f d >> <> a1 R1*6 < > r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } No, that's very wrong code. With these << >> you are actually telling LilyPond to print independent voices while you want to write chords. This may work in your example but you would definitely run into problems very soon. \version "2.18.2-1" { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests R1*6 4. < f d > 4 a1 R1*6 8 r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } Is the correct way to write your example. But I assume this is not what you _want_ - you will want to have the polyphonic part with independent stems. This is the smartest way to write what you want because it makes the voicing right automatically: \version "2.18.2-1" { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests R1*6 << { g4. f e4 } \\ { e4. d d4 } >> a1 R1*6 << { b8 } \\ { e8 } >> r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } This construct (with the "\\") creates \voiceOne, \voiceTwo etc. implicitly. Read http://lilypondblog.org/2013/07/voice-contexts-in-temporary-polyphonic-sections/ and particularly the chapter from the Notation Reference that is linked in that article. HTH Urs ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
Urs Liska googlemail.com> writes: > > Am 02.06.2014 09:33, schrieb Brian Eve: > > { > > \clef bass > > \compressFullBarRests > > \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 > >R1*6 > > << > > { > >\voiceOneg4. f e4 } > >\new Voice { > >\voiceTwo e4. d d4 } > >>> >> > > \oneVoice a1 > >R1*6 > > << > > { > >\voiceOneb8 } > >\new Voice { > >\voiceTwo e8 } > >>> >> > >r8 r4 r2 > >R1*6 > >R1 > >r > >R > > } > > No, it's because in that form of temporary polyphonc section the first > of the parallel voices is continued after the >> > > In your example that's \voiceOne. > > So you have to provide a \oneVoice after the >> > That's intended and documented behaviour. > > Best > Urs > Thanks, Urs. I knew I was doing things too complicated. I fixed the problem this much easier way: \version "2.18.2-1" { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 R1*6 << g4. e >> << f d >> <> a1 R1*6 << b8 e8 >> r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
"Urs Liska" wrote in message news:538c29c2.9050...@googlemail.com... Am 02.06.2014 09:33, schrieb Brian Eve: { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 R1*6 << { \voiceOne g4. f e4 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e4. d d4 } >> \oneVoice a1 R1*6 << { \voiceOne b8 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e8 } >> r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } No, it's because in that form of temporary polyphonc section the first of the parallel voices is continued after the >> In your example that's \voiceOne. So you have to provide a \oneVoice after the >> That's intended and documented behaviour. Best Urs It's probably worth mentioning that using \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 is disguising the problem with the non whole measure rests. It would probably be better to get the voicing right than use this override. However, it's also worth mentioning that the override does not apply to whole measure rests. For this you need MultiMeasureRest.staff-position : see http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/writing-rests#full-measure-rests for more details. -- Phil Holmes ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
Am 02.06.2014 09:33, schrieb Brian Eve: { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 R1*6 << { \voiceOneg4. f e4 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e4. d d4 } >> \oneVoice a1 R1*6 << { \voiceOneb8 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e8 } >> r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } No, it's because in that form of temporary polyphonc section the first of the parallel voices is continued after the >> In your example that's \voiceOne. So you have to provide a \oneVoice after the >> That's intended and documented behaviour. Best Urs ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with \oneVoice involving rests
Brian Eve gmail.com> writes: > > I am trying to write a single trombone part in which there are a few bars of > divisi every once in a while in the part. The problem I am having is with > the position of whole rests and shorter multi-measure rests being placed on > the staff too high once divisi ends. > > Notice the r1's are not affected, but the R1's are. I think it has > something to do with where the last not on the upper voice left off. > > I would include a short example of what I am doing, but this form is > accusing me of top-posting and will not let me include the relevant text. > Here is the text of the file: \version "2.18.2-1" { \clef bass \compressFullBarRests \override Rest #'staff-position = #0 R1*6 << { \voiceOne g4. f e4 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e4. d d4 } >> \oneVoice a1 R1*6 << { \voiceOne b8 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo e8 } >> r8 r4 r2 R1*6 R1 r R } ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in MusicXML test file
Colin Hall writes: > pls writes: >> Am 07.02.2013 um 10:46 schrieb Richard Lanyon : >> >>> The last note in the file "02a-Rests-Durations.xml" is a dotted 128th note, >>> but >>> the file is set up with 32 divisions per quarter notes, which means that a >>> dotted 128th note is not representable (it would be 1.5 divisions long). Is >>> this >>> intentional? I understand that the notated duration does not need to match >>> the >>> "MIDI" duration, but I wonder if there was meant to be a discrepancy in this >>> particular file? >> >> Richard, >> >> you are right it should be 64 divisions but for some reason the result is >> correct. So it's not the worst musicxml2ly bug! >> >> Cheers >> patrick > > Thanks for confirming that this is a bug, Patrick. Added to the issue tracker, and labelled as a "Scripts" bug, here: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=3189 Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in MusicXML test file
Many thanks for confirming this - I realise it's only a small thing, but I just wanted to make sure I understood the intent of the test. Cheers, Richard From: pls To: Richard Lanyon , Cc: bug-lilypond@gnu.org Date: 08/02/2013 11:22 Subject: Re: possible bug in MusicXML test file Richard, you are right it should be 64 divisions but for some reason the result is correct. So it's not the worst musicxml2ly bug! Cheers patrick Am 07.02.2013 um 10:46 schrieb Richard Lanyon : > The last note in the file "02a-Rests-Durations.xml" is a dotted 128th note, but > the file is set up with 32 divisions per quarter notes, which means that a > dotted 128th note is not representable (it would be 1.5 divisions long). Is this > intentional? I understand that the notated duration does not need to match the > "MIDI" duration, but I wonder if there was meant to be a discrepancy in this > particular file? > > > ___ > bug-lilypond mailing list > bug-lilypond@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH, Frankenstrasse 18b, D-20097 Hamburg, Germany Phone: +49 (40) 21035-0 | Fax: +49 (40) 21035-300 | www.steinberg.net Managing Director: Andreas Stelling, Kazunori Kobayashi Registration Court: Hamburg HRB 86534 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in MusicXML test file
pls writes: > Am 07.02.2013 um 10:46 schrieb Richard Lanyon : > >> The last note in the file "02a-Rests-Durations.xml" is a dotted 128th note, >> but >> the file is set up with 32 divisions per quarter notes, which means that a >> dotted 128th note is not representable (it would be 1.5 divisions long). Is >> this >> intentional? I understand that the notated duration does not need to match >> the >> "MIDI" duration, but I wonder if there was meant to be a discrepancy in this >> particular file? > > Richard, > > you are right it should be 64 divisions but for some reason the result is > correct. So it's not the worst musicxml2ly bug! > > Cheers > patrick Thanks for confirming that this is a bug, Patrick. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in MusicXML test file
Richard, you are right it should be 64 divisions but for some reason the result is correct. So it's not the worst musicxml2ly bug! Cheers patrick Am 07.02.2013 um 10:46 schrieb Richard Lanyon : > The last note in the file "02a-Rests-Durations.xml" is a dotted 128th note, > but > the file is set up with 32 divisions per quarter notes, which means that a > dotted 128th note is not representable (it would be 1.5 divisions long). Is > this > intentional? I understand that the notated duration does not need to match the > "MIDI" duration, but I wonder if there was meant to be a discrepancy in this > particular file? > > > ___ > 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: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Fine by me. Great snippets btw! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:26:52AM +, Sami Amiris wrote: > Mark Mathias gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Colin, > > I just read through this, and I think it is over my head as far as creating > > issues as suggested by David. I'll pass on this one hoping someone more > > competent untangles the threads to create issues as needed. > > Mark > > Normally I would just shut my mouth, as your answer itself is probably over > my > head (I don't even know what are the "issues as suggested by David", for > example.) I can understand however that me, being a novice, has tangled the > threads to such an extent that one cannot see the light. So, the least - and, > unfortunately, most - I can do is to tell you my issue, and its solution. > > My issue is to write in two voices (in the traditional sense) for the piano, > one > for Right hand, one for left hand. These voices span the whole piano, so one > nice way to do it is to change the staves at mid C, something that is > beautifully given to us by \autochange. On top of this, I am writting a scale > and arpeggio exercises collection, so I would have to do it many, many times > over. That is why I would like to avoid doing it by hand, and as I said, > thank > God for autochange. > > Now, I couldn't find a combination of commands to actually do it. The > ascending > scales worked like a charm, but the descending ones failed. Actually, if the > R.H. was anywhere above \relative C'', things failed miserably. I tried to > follow the manual closely, by the piano examples with autochange didn't help > me. > > After reading through many valuable suggestions, I reached a solution that > works > fine, and it is here: > > http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Possible-multiple-bugs%2C-any-way-around-- > p33982446.html > Hi Sami, I've had a look at all the posts and I don't think there's all that much to be said. I think all the trouble arose because you were trying to do something quite tricky, even for an experienced user. The documentation for autochange [1] looks fine to me but it only deals with the simple case where there is only once voice and it is the one created automatically. I've taken your original post and re-written it to be suitable for submission as a snippet, see attached. I wasn't able to reproduce the warning due to the initial \bar command, though I do reproduce David Kastrup's recent bug report which I believe arose from your original post. So, in summary, I don't find a bug here but there are some shortcomings in the docs. I'll create a doc suggestion to address that. Cheers, Colin. [1] http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.15/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-keyboards#changing-staff-automatically Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall \version "2.14.2" \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up" { \key des \major \time 7/8 \clef treble \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(7) << \new Voice { \voiceOne \autochange \relative c' { \stemUp { \bar "|:" ges8 aes bes c des ees f | \bar ":|" \cadenzaOn ges1 \cadenzaOff | \bar "|." } } } \new Voice { \key des \major \autochange { \relative c' { \stemDown { ges8 aes bes c des ees f | \cadenzaOn ges1 \cadenzaOff } } } } >> } \new Staff = "down" { \key des \major \clef bass } >> \header { subtitle = ##f subsubtitle = ##f piece = \markup{ Two voices with the same notes, the R.H. has stems up and the L.H. has stems down} } } \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up" { \key des \major \time 7/8 \clef treble \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(7) << \new Voice { \voiceOne \autochange \relative c' { \stemUp { \bar "|:" ges8 aes bes c des ees f | \bar ":|" \cadenzaOn ges1 \cadenzaOff \bar "|." } } } \new Voice { \voiceTwo \autochange \relative c { \stemDown { ges8 aes bes c des ees f | \cadenzaOn ges1 \cadenzaOff } } } >> } \new Staff = "down" { \key des \major \clef bass } >> } \header { subtitle = ##f subsubtitle = ##f piece = \markup { \column { \justify { Two voices with notes an octave apart. Now the noteheads are distinct and each voice has
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Thank you! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Hi Sami, Mark, On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 07:26:52AM +, Sami Amiris wrote: > Mark Mathias gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Colin, > > I just read through this, and I think it is over my head as far as creating > > issues as suggested by David. I'll pass on this one hoping someone more > > competent untangles the threads to create issues as needed. > > Mark > > Normally I would just shut my mouth, as your answer itself is probably over > my > head (I don't even know what are the "issues as suggested by David", for > example.) I can understand however that me, being a novice, has tangled the > threads to such an extent that one cannot see the light. So, the least - and, > unfortunately, most - I can do is to tell you my issue, and its solution. I just read through your description there Sami, it is very clear, thanks for taking the time to summarise your work. This is very helpful. You have demonstrated that Lilypond can do the job, but it took a while to get there, and no-one in the community was able to give you a complete answer right away. So I think there must be a documentation enhancement and perhaps a snippet that can be made from this. I'm on duty today so I'll take responsibility to do the necessary admin. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Mark Mathias gmail.com> writes: > > Colin, > I just read through this, and I think it is over my head as far as creating > issues as suggested by David. I'll pass on this one hoping someone more > competent untangles the threads to create issues as needed. > Mark Normally I would just shut my mouth, as your answer itself is probably over my head (I don't even know what are the "issues as suggested by David", for example.) I can understand however that me, being a novice, has tangled the threads to such an extent that one cannot see the light. So, the least - and, unfortunately, most - I can do is to tell you my issue, and its solution. My issue is to write in two voices (in the traditional sense) for the piano, one for Right hand, one for left hand. These voices span the whole piano, so one nice way to do it is to change the staves at mid C, something that is beautifully given to us by \autochange. On top of this, I am writting a scale and arpeggio exercises collection, so I would have to do it many, many times over. That is why I would like to avoid doing it by hand, and as I said, thank God for autochange. Now, I couldn't find a combination of commands to actually do it. The ascending scales worked like a charm, but the descending ones failed. Actually, if the R.H. was anywhere above \relative C'', things failed miserably. I tried to follow the manual closely, by the piano examples with autochange didn't help me. After reading through many valuable suggestions, I reached a solution that works fine, and it is here: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Possible-multiple-bugs%2C-any-way-around-- p33982446.html If one uses the commands in this sequence, one can write scales, arps, whatever for two hands that change staves automatically as needed, and stay on separate voices. I hope this helps a bit. P.S. If I want a different time signature, with its associated automatic beam behavior, the \time command must exist in both staves, but the \set Timing.beatStructure = #'(whatever) needs to be on the empty bass clef staff only. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Colin, I just read through this, and I think it is over my head as far as creating issues as suggested by David. I'll pass on this one hoping someone more competent untangles the threads to create issues as needed. Mark On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Sami Amiris wrote: > > > If you have found something interesting perhaps it is worthy of > > becoming a Lilypond Snippet? > > This is not really for me to say. If you think that it is worthy of being a > snippet, by all means take it! > > Thank you for everything. > > > > > > ___ > 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: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
> If you have found something interesting perhaps it is worthy of > becoming a Lilypond Snippet? This is not really for me to say. If you think that it is worthy of being a snippet, by all means take it! Thank you for everything. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:02:55PM +, Sami Amiris wrote: > I think I solved the problem. I sent a message to the other list. > Should I copy it here too? Glad to hear you have fixed it! If you have found something interesting perhaps it is worthy of becoming a Lilypond Snippet? There's no need to copy it to bug-lilypond, thanks. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
I think I solved the problem. I sent a message to the other list. Should I copy it here too? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Thanks! I will try this with 7/8 that the book examples use... ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami wrote: > > Would you be kind enough to share the code? > > you can try \overrideTimeSignatureSettings 2/4 % timeSignatureFraction 2/4 % baseMomentFraction #'(2) % beatStructure #'() % beamExceptions \time 2/4 but this depends on the version (I'm using 2.15.40) - please consult the manuals : there's also a link there to the file in LilyPond where these settings are defined for all timings. hth Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug%2C-or-I-am-doing-something-wrong--tp33965119p33978094.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Would you be kind enough to share the code? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami wrote: > > -Eluze gmail.com> writes: >> that seems to be due to the manual beaming >> maybe you could override the beaming structure (analogous to 4/4 timing) > > I tried changing the beaming structure, but nothing changed. But I am a > novice, > so maybe I just did less than I should have. > > well, I just had an attempt with \time 4/4 and this seemed to work (for the autochange and beaming). but I can't foresee what can happen in the end! so if you have problems with changing the beaming parameters don't hesitate to ask here (maybe open a new post and wait for a few hours…) Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug%2C-or-I-am-doing-something-wrong--tp33965119p33977658.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
-Eluze gmail.com> writes: > that's all I tried to solve… and you did, and thank you! Once I saw that, I tried all sorts of combinations to circumvent the autochange problem that followed by a "hat trick" sort of workaround, but always hit a brick wall due to the autochange going haywire... > that seems to be due to the manual beaming > maybe you could override the beaming structure (analogous to 4/4 timing) I tried changing the beaming structure, but nothing changed. But I am a novice, so maybe I just did less than I should have. > altogether, did you think of switching staves manually? you'd be faster than > waiting for a new release with this/these bug/bugs fixed (they are not even > in the issue tracker yet!) That is a reality I might have to face. The only problem is that I am writting a piano book of exercises, and that would mean a HUGE rewritting project for me. But, just like you said, I don't really see any alternative. Once again, thank you! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami wrote: > > >> does it help if you put >> >> \autochange \new Voice { … } >> > >> >> Eluze > > > Thank you. It opens up a new can of worms. The stem up - down work fine > now, > that's all I tried to solve… > but the autochange is reversed! Running this will show what I mean: > > \version "2.14.2" > \score > { > \new PianoStaff > << > \new Staff = "up"{ > \time 2/4 > \clef treble > \autochange { > \new Voice > \relative c'' > { > \stemUp{ > b8[ c b' c | d2] > > > \new Staff = "down"{ > \time 2/4 > \clef bass > \autochange { > \new Voice > \relative c' > { > \stemDown{ >b8[ c b' c | d2] > > >> > } > > that seems to be due to the manual beaming maybe you could override the beaming structure (analogous to 4/4 timing) and the next bug??? > btw, the lilypond-user list won't accept my msgs even though I am a > registered > user. Still pending... > altogether, did you think of switching staves manually? you'd be faster than waiting for a new release with this/these bug/bugs fixed (they are not even in the issue tracker yet!) Eluze it's here now -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug%2C-or-I-am-doing-something-wrong--tp33965119p33976584.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
> does it help if you put > > \autochange \new Voice { … } > > > Eluze Thank you. It opens up a new can of worms. The stem up - down work fine now, but the autochange is reversed! Running this will show what I mean: \version "2.14.2" \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up"{ \time 2/4 \clef treble \autochange { \new Voice \relative c'' { \stemUp{ b8[ c b' c | d2] \new Staff = "down"{ \time 2/4 \clef bass \autochange { \new Voice \relative c' { \stemDown{ b8[ c b' c | d2] >> } btw, the lilypond-user list won't accept my msgs even though I am a registered user. Still pending... ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami wrote: > > > Thank you. Just sent it. > does it help if you put \autochange \new Voice { … } ? Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug%2C-or-I-am-doing-something-wrong--tp33965119p33976023.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Colin Hall gmail.com> writes: > The best place for "what is going on here" type questions is the > lilypond-user mailing list. You could try sending your last to > bug-lilypond there and see if anyone steps up to help. Thank you. Just sent it. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 03:36:47PM +0300, Sami - Vasileios Amiris wrote: > Thank you very much. I sent a message to the group. If it is not good > enough, just tell me what to do and I will gladly do it. Thank you once > again! Thank you, Sami, you have made it very clear. It is definitely good enough. All we ask is that you help us to help you, and you have clearly done the best you can. The best place for "what is going on here" type questions is the lilypond-user mailing list. You could try sending your last to bug-lilypond there and see if anyone steps up to help. I'm not free to work on this today but I'll check back and see how it is going, and help if I can. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Thank you very much. I sent a message to the group. If it is not good enough, just tell me what to do and I will gladly do it. Thank you once again! 2012/6/6 Colin Hall > > Hi Sami, > > On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 07:41:13AM +, Sami Amiris wrote: > > David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > > > > > > > It means that if there is supposed to be a right way, it is too hard to > > > discover. You triggered a number of bugs and/or design deficiencies. > > > Enough of them actually to make for several independent bug reports. I > > > think that your main issue would likely show even with \bar in the > > > example, so that would be one report. > > > > Well, that is a relief! :) So, being the annoyingly newbie that I am, > > what should I do now? > > How many bug reports should I file, and how would I make them more > > helpful to the developers? > > Thanks for the bug report you sent in. > > You are new to lilypond so it is hard for you to separate the bugs > from everything else in your example. > > If one of the team (perhaps me) has time they will examine your score and > isolate > any bug report material within it. > > Until then anything you can do to further simplify or correct your > sample would be most useful. > > If you can send an example of the output you want, that can be useful. > > Cheers, > Colin. > > -- > > Colin Hall > -- Sami - Vasileios Amiris http://samiamiris.com/ http://www.myspace.com/samiamiris ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
> Thanks for the bug report you sent in. > > You are new to lilypond so it is hard for you to separate the bugs > from everything else in your example. You can say that again! Reducing the initial example to the reduced example took 10 years out of my life. Growing pains, I know... > If one of the team (perhaps me) has time they will examine your score and isolate > any bug report material within it. Thank you!!! > Until then anything you can do to further simplify or correct your > sample would be most useful. > > If you can send an example of the output you want, that can be useful. > > Cheers, > Colin. > The following is right: \version "2.14.2" \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up"{ \clef treble \new Voice = "upper" \autochange { \relative c' %If this becomes c' or lower, everything ok. %as it is, it puts everything in the voice of "down". { \stemUp{ \bar "|:" bes4 c bes' c \bar ":|" d1 \bar "|." \new Staff = "down"{ \clef bass \new Voice = "lower" \autochange { \relative c %this is of no consequence, really { \stemDown{ bes4 c bes' c | d1 >> } while this is messed up: \version "2.14.2" \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up"{ \clef treble \new Voice = "upper" \autochange { \relative c'' %If this becomes c' or lower, everything ok. %as it is, it puts everything in the voice of "down". { \stemUp{ \bar "|:" bes4 c bes' c \bar ":|" d1 \bar "|." \new Staff = "down"{ \clef bass \new Voice = "lower" \autochange { \relative c' %this is of no consequence, really { \stemDown{ bes4 c bes' c | d1 >> } Thanks again!!! ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Hi Sami, On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 07:41:13AM +, Sami Amiris wrote: > David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > > > > It means that if there is supposed to be a right way, it is too hard to > > discover. You triggered a number of bugs and/or design deficiencies. > > Enough of them actually to make for several independent bug reports. I > > think that your main issue would likely show even with \bar in the > > example, so that would be one report. > > Well, that is a relief! :) So, being the annoyingly newbie that I am, > what should I do now? > How many bug reports should I file, and how would I make them more > helpful to the developers? Thanks for the bug report you sent in. You are new to lilypond so it is hard for you to separate the bugs from everything else in your example. If one of the team (perhaps me) has time they will examine your score and isolate any bug report material within it. Until then anything you can do to further simplify or correct your sample would be most useful. If you can send an example of the output you want, that can be useful. Cheers, Colin. -- Colin Hall ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > It means that if there is supposed to be a right way, it is too hard to > discover. You triggered a number of bugs and/or design deficiencies. > Enough of them actually to make for several independent bug reports. I > think that your main issue would likely show even with \bar in the > example, so that would be one report. Well, that is a relief! :) So, being the annoyingly newbie that I am, what should I do now? How many bug reports should I file, and how would I make them more helpful to the developers? ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami Amiris writes: > David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > >> >> There are so many things going wrong here that it is not actually easy >> to start. This is still not a minimal example, and in fact it would >> warrant several minimal examples. > > As I said, I am a newbie. I stretched my abilities to shrink it this far. > >> One thing that goes wrong is that \bar complains because it tries >> accessing the Timing context before it has even been created. Starting >> music with \bar apparently is not supported. Acutely embarrassing. > > You mean I should be embarrassed, or the program? :) > >> But that does not seem related to the \autochange going haywire: it is >> not clear to me whether this is because the material ends up in the same >> voice, or whether it is just that one of the \stemUp/\stemDown does not >> have an effect where it would be needed. >> > > So that means that I wrote everything all wrong, or that they are bugs > involved? It means that if there is supposed to be a right way, it is too hard to discover. You triggered a number of bugs and/or design deficiencies. Enough of them actually to make for several independent bug reports. I think that your main issue would likely show even with \bar in the example, so that would be one report. > Is the world cubic, or I pounded it into shape-change? :) -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > > There are so many things going wrong here that it is not actually easy > to start. This is still not a minimal example, and in fact it would > warrant several minimal examples. As I said, I am a newbie. I stretched my abilities to shrink it this far. > One thing that goes wrong is that \bar complains because it tries > accessing the Timing context before it has even been created. Starting > music with \bar apparently is not supported. Acutely embarrassing. You mean I should be embarrassed, or the program? :) > But that does not seem related to the \autochange going haywire: it is > not clear to me whether this is because the material ends up in the same > voice, or whether it is just that one of the \stemUp/\stemDown does not > have an effect where it would be needed. > So that means that I wrote everything all wrong, or that they are bugs involved? Is the world cubic, or I pounded it into shape-change? :) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami Amiris writes: > David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > >> >> Sami Amiris gmail.com> writes: >> >> > Please run this, it is self-explanatory. It is an issue with >> > autochange and >> > beaming. Is it me, or a bug? >> >> You are doing something wrong. You don't start a voice before writing >> \autochange, and so \autochange _first_ changes the Staff, and then >> there is no longer a need to start a new implicit voice since the upper >> staff already _has_ an implicit voice. >> >> So for the lower staff, try writing >> \new Voice \autochange ... >> and the autochange voice will get started in the lower staff and remain >> rooted there. >> > > I have trimmed it like this: > > \version "2.14.2" > \score > { > \new PianoStaff > << > \new Staff = "up"{ > \clef treble > \new Voice = "upper" > \autochange { > \relative c'' %If this becomes c' or lower, everything ok. > %as it is, it puts everything in the voice of > "down". > { > \stemUp{ > \bar "|:" bes4 c bes' c \bar ":|" d1 \bar "|." > > > \new Staff = "down"{ > \clef bass > \new Voice = "lower" > \autochange { > \relative c' %this is of no consequence, really > { > \stemDown{ >bes4 c bes' c | d1 > > >> > } > > I have put new voices, but it still doesn't work. How would this work? > I am a relative newbie, so please excuse the clumsiness... There are so many things going wrong here that it is not actually easy to start. This is still not a minimal example, and in fact it would warrant several minimal examples. One thing that goes wrong is that \bar complains because it tries accessing the Timing context before it has even been created. Starting music with \bar apparently is not supported. Acutely embarrassing. But that does not seem related to the \autochange going haywire: it is not clear to me whether this is because the material ends up in the same voice, or whether it is just that one of the \stemUp/\stemDown does not have an effect where it would be needed. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
by the way, it works fine of the only thing I change is the "\relative c''" of the "up" staff, to "\relative c'" or lower. The whole thing crumbles only when the "\relative" of the upper hand goes from c'' and up. Otherwise, it works as intended. Even without entering voices. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Janek Warchoł gmail.com> writes: > > also, please send smaller examples. See > http://www.lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html I apologise. New and clumsy... ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > > Sami Amiris gmail.com> writes: > > > Please run this, it is self-explanatory. It is an issue with autochange and > > beaming. Is it me, or a bug? > > You are doing something wrong. You don't start a voice before writing > \autochange, and so \autochange _first_ changes the Staff, and then > there is no longer a need to start a new implicit voice since the upper > staff already _has_ an implicit voice. > > So for the lower staff, try writing > \new Voice \autochange ... > and the autochange voice will get started in the lower staff and remain > rooted there. > I have trimmed it like this: \version "2.14.2" \score { \new PianoStaff << \new Staff = "up"{ \clef treble \new Voice = "upper" \autochange { \relative c'' %If this becomes c' or lower, everything ok. %as it is, it puts everything in the voice of "down". { \stemUp{ \bar "|:" bes4 c bes' c \bar ":|" d1 \bar "|." \new Staff = "down"{ \clef bass \new Voice = "lower" \autochange { \relative c' %this is of no consequence, really { \stemDown{ bes4 c bes' c | d1 >> } I have put new voices, but it still doesn't work. How would this work? I am a relative newbie, so please excuse the clumsiness... ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 6:39 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Sami Amiris writes: > >> Please run this, it is self-explanatory. It is an issue with autochange and >> beaming. Is it me, or a bug? > > [...] also, please send smaller examples. See http://www.lilypond.org/tiny-examples.html cheers, Janek ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug, or I am doing something wrong?
Sami Amiris writes: > Please run this, it is self-explanatory. It is an issue with autochange and > beaming. Is it me, or a bug? You are doing something wrong. You don't start a voice before writing \autochange, and so \autochange _first_ changes the Staff, and then there is no longer a need to start a new implicit voice since the upper staff already _has_ an implicit voice. So for the lower staff, try writing \new Voice \autochange ... and the autochange voice will get started in the lower staff and remain rooted there. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
"Phil Holmes" writes: > OK. It's not a bug in the build system - the directory exists. If > you do use -o ./out-www/ (with the trailing slash) it makes no > difference - it still produces files names out-www.pdf, etc. It might be a nice featurelet if with this spelling the directory was created if it does not exist yet. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
- Original Message - From: "Graham Percival" To: "Phil Holmes" Cc: "Bugs" Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2012 12:44 PM Subject: Re: Possible bug On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:35:28PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: [path]lilypond -H texidoc -H options -o ./out-www /home/phil/lilypond-git/input/regression/midi/key-option-all-staves.ly This is supposed to create the files key-option-all-staves.texidoc key-option-all-staves.options key-option-all-staves.pdf and key-option-all-staves.midi. However, if the directory out-www does not exist, it creates that set of files in the CWD but with the name out-www (i.e. it loses the root key-option-all-staves). Bug? In terms of the build system, I can't think of any case in which this is possibly the desired behaviour, so yes it's a bug in the build system. In terms of lilypond itself, no. Specify -o ./out-www/ if you want to ensure that it's a directory; otherwise there's no reason for lilypond to assume that you want a directory out-www/ instead of a file out-www - Graham OK. It's not a bug in the build system - the directory exists. If you do use -o ./out-www/ (with the trailing slash) it makes no difference - it still produces files names out-www.pdf, etc. -- Phil Holmes ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
"Phil Holmes" writes: > Again, this is one I'm not sure is a bug or not - I can't find it in > the bug list. > > make runs lilypond with a number of command lines like the one below: > > [path]lilypond -H texidoc -H options -o ./out-www > /home/phil/lilypond-git/input/regression/midi/key-option-all-staves.ly > > This is supposed to create the files key-option-all-staves.texidoc > key-option-all-staves.options key-option-all-staves.pdf and > key-option-all-staves.midi. However, if the directory out-www does > not exist, it creates that set of files in the CWD but with the name > out-www (i.e. it loses the root key-option-all-staves). > > Bug? Uh, there is something called a manual for figuring out what the intended behavior might be. `-o,--output=FILE or FOLDER' Set the default output file to FILE or, if a folder with that name exists, direct the output to FOLDER, taking the file name from the input file. The appropriate suffix will be added (e.g. `.pdf' for pdf) in both cases. In any case, a complex differentiated behavior like this is unlikely to come about by accident, so the first thing to check is to see what the documented intent might have been. And it matches the behavior quite accurately. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 12:35:28PM -, Phil Holmes wrote: > [path]lilypond -H texidoc -H options -o ./out-www > /home/phil/lilypond-git/input/regression/midi/key-option-all-staves.ly > > This is supposed to create the files key-option-all-staves.texidoc > key-option-all-staves.options key-option-all-staves.pdf and > key-option-all-staves.midi. However, if the directory out-www does > not exist, it creates that set of files in the CWD but with the name > out-www (i.e. it loses the root key-option-all-staves). > > Bug? In terms of the build system, I can't think of any case in which this is possibly the desired behaviour, so yes it's a bug in the build system. In terms of lilypond itself, no. Specify -o ./out-www/ if you want to ensure that it's a directory; otherwise there's no reason for lilypond to assume that you want a directory out-www/ instead of a file out-www - Graham ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
dak-3 wrote: > > David Kastrup writes: > >> -Eluze writes: >> >>> David Kastrup wrote: -Eluze writes: > Phil Holmes wrote: >> >> With this input: >> >> { >> #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) >> \clef bass >> ces4 ces ces ces | >> c4 c c c | >> } >> >> I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I >> believe I >> would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but >> would >> like >> someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate >> change >> (for some reason). >> >> > > use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find > this > in Changes either! I don't think that this should make a difference. It is a nicer interface, but the results should be the same I think. I have not investigated, though. >>> it obviously does: >>> >>> { \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" ces1 c } >>> { #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) ces1 c } >> >> Sigh. I'll investigate. > > Right. Now I remember (and so does convert-ly, by the way). > set-accidental-style used to be (ly:export ...) since it returns a music > expression, and it no longer is (since ly:export does no longer exist). > So you need to call it as $(set-accidental-style ...) > if it is supposed to have any effect. > > indeed - convert-ly does its job and $(… ) works as well - thanx! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug-with-cautionary-accidentals-tp33270781p33271957.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
David Kastrup writes: > -Eluze writes: > >> David Kastrup wrote: >>> >>> -Eluze writes: >>> Phil Holmes wrote: > > With this input: > > { > #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) > \clef bass > ces4 ces ces ces | > c4 c c c | > } > > I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I believe I > would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but would > like > someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate change > (for some reason). > > use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find this in Changes either! >>> >>> I don't think that this should make a difference. It is a nicer >>> interface, but the results should be the same I think. I have not >>> investigated, though. >>> >> it obviously does: >> >> { \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" ces1 c } >> { #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) ces1 c } > > Sigh. I'll investigate. Right. Now I remember (and so does convert-ly, by the way). set-accidental-style used to be (ly:export ...) since it returns a music expression, and it no longer is (since ly:export does no longer exist). So you need to call it as $(set-accidental-style ...) if it is supposed to have any effect. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
-Eluze writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> >> -Eluze writes: >> >>> Phil Holmes wrote: With this input: { #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) \clef bass ces4 ces ces ces | c4 c c c | } I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I believe I would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but would like someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate change (for some reason). >>> >>> use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find >>> this >>> in Changes either! >> >> I don't think that this should make a difference. It is a nicer >> interface, but the results should be the same I think. I have not >> investigated, though. >> > it obviously does: > > { \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" ces1 c } > { #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) ces1 c } Sigh. I'll investigate. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
David Kastrup wrote: > > -Eluze writes: > >> Phil Holmes wrote: >>> >>> With this input: >>> >>> { >>> #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) >>> \clef bass >>> ces4 ces ces ces | >>> c4 c c c | >>> } >>> >>> I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I believe I >>> would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but would >>> like >>> someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate change >>> (for some reason). >>> >>> >> >> use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find >> this >> in Changes either! > > I don't think that this should make a difference. It is a nicer > interface, but the results should be the same I think. I have not > investigated, though. > it obviously does: { \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" ces1 c } { #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) ces1 c } http://old.nabble.com/file/p33271561/test4.png see also the example in "NR -> automatic accidentals -> modern" Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug-with-cautionary-accidentals-tp33270781p33271561.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
-Eluze writes: > Phil Holmes wrote: >> >> With this input: >> >> { >> #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) >> \clef bass >> ces4 ces ces ces | >> c4 c c c | >> } >> >> I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I believe I >> would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but would >> like >> someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate change >> (for some reason). >> >> > > use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find this > in Changes either! I don't think that this should make a difference. It is a nicer interface, but the results should be the same I think. I have not investigated, though. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug with cautionary accidentals
Phil Holmes wrote: > > With this input: > > { > #(set-accidental-style 'modern-voice-cautionary) > \clef bass > ces4 ces ces ces | > c4 c c c | > } > > I get a cautionary in the second bar up until 2.15.16 (which I believe I > would expect) but none in 2.15.18.I reckon this is a bug, but would > like > someone who does this stuff to confirm that it's not a deliberate change > (for some reason). > > use \accidentalStyle "modern-voice-cautionary" instead - couldn't find this in Changes either! -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Possible-bug-with-cautionary-accidentals-tp33270781p33271375.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug on \addlyrics in Lilypond 2.13.54
2011/3/20 Carl Sorensen : > > > > On 3/19/11 4:18 PM, "Wim van Dommelen" wrote: > >>> I'm not top posting. >> >> I found some weird behaviour in music disappearing when adding a lyric. >> >> This is the smallest I could get the problem reduced to: >> >> \version "2.13.54" >> >> \score { >> \new Staff { >> \relative g' { g1 } >> % as soon as the next line is commented in the piece truncates, >> % when commented out we see more notes appearing >> \addlyrics { milk milk } >> \relative g' { c2 g } >> \addlyrics { su- gar su- gar } >> } >> } >> >> Not too sure ifnthis counts as a real bug, nor how serious it might be. When >> I >> did something wrong please accept my apologies. >> >> On the whole I'm very content with Lilypond, keep up the good work ! >> >> Regards, >> Wim. >> >> > > You've got the lyrics in a sequential block with the music, rather than in a > parallel block. > > \new Staff { > << > \relative g' {g1} > \addlyrics { milk } > >> > << > \relative g' { c2 g } > \addlyrics { su- gar } > >> > } I hate to say that \addlyrics is not intented to be used this way, either. i.e. \new Staff { \relative g' {g1} \addlyrics { milk } } works as expected. The problem is that you can not put another pair {music}\addlyrics{lyrics} on sequence, given the way in which addlyrics works. I strongly recommend to use named voice contexts plus \lyricsto for any other than mostest simplest songs. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug on \addlyrics in Lilypond 2.13.54
On 3/19/11 4:18 PM, "Wim van Dommelen" wrote: >> I'm not top posting. > > I found some weird behaviour in music disappearing when adding a lyric. > > This is the smallest I could get the problem reduced to: > > \version "2.13.54" > > \score { > \new Staff { > \relative g' { g1 } > % as soon as the next line is commented in the piece truncates, > % when commented out we see more notes appearing > \addlyrics { milk milk } > \relative g' { c2 g } > \addlyrics { su- gar su- gar } > } > } > > Not too sure ifnthis counts as a real bug, nor how serious it might be. When I > did something wrong please accept my apologies. > > On the whole I'm very content with Lilypond, keep up the good work ! > > Regards, > Wim. > > You've got the lyrics in a sequential block with the music, rather than in a parallel block. \new Staff { << \relative g' {g1} \addlyrics { milk } >> << \relative g' { c2 g } \addlyrics { su- gar } >> } HTH, Carl ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug on \addlyrics in Lilypond 2.13.54
2011/3/19 Wim van Dommelen : >> I'm not top posting. > > I found some weird behaviour in music disappearing when adding a lyric. > > This is the smallest I could get the problem reduced to: > > \version "2.13.54" > > \score { > \new Staff { > \relative g' { g1 } > % as soon as the next line is commented in the piece truncates, > % when commented out we see more notes appearing > \addlyrics { milk milk } > \relative g' { c2 g } > \addlyrics { su- gar su- gar } > } > } What follows is my opinion only. It looks as if the voice context for the second \addlyrics is lost after the first \addlyrics. This does not surprise me. The behaviour is not more weird than the code itself. \addlirycs is not intented do be used this way, that's why you obtain an unexpected result. { music } \addlyrics { lyrics } is a short for << \newStaff { \new Voice=name {music} } \new Lyrics \lyricsto name \lyricmode { lyrics } >> It is a simultaneous construct, but you don't use <<>> and therefore is not clear what you try to achieve by just putting more music after an addlyrics. This is what you can do depending on what you want: Do you want your music and lyrics to be simultaneous? use <<\new Staff {music} \addlyrics {lyrics}\new Staff {music} \addlyrics {lyrics}>> . Do you want your music to be sequential and your lyrics to be simultaneous? first concatenate music in a single voice, then use addlyrics twice. Do you want it all to be sequential? first concatenate music and lyrics, then use addlyrics once. -- Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain) www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug on \addlyrics in Lilypond 2.13.54
The double lyrics words ar of course superfluous, sorry about that, but it doesn't change the problem Wim. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug: Makefile crashed with maintainerclean
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Robert Clausecker wrote: > When I execute the Lilypond-Makefile with the maintainerclean-option, I > get this error: > > $ make maintainerclean > ... lots of output ... > make --no-builtin-rules local-distclean > make[1]: Entering directory `/home/robert/lilypond' > make[1]: *** No rule to make target `/home/robert/lilypond/configure', > needed by `config.make'. Stop. > make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/robert/lilypond' > make: *** [maintainerclean] Fehler 2 > > where Fehler means error. This happens on a plain checkout of the > sourcecode and autogen afterwards. My platform is ubuntu 10.04 linux > x64, I use trunk. Thanks for the report. I've logged the bug in the tracker and will fix it shortly. http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1383 Thanks, Patrick ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug? Engraving forgets symbol
On 25 October 2010 12:53, Mat Simon wrote: > > Hi > > I'm quite sure the following minimal sample gets wrongly engraved with the > latest 2.12.3 release - that is packaged in Ubuntu 10.10 (amd64) > > My english in terms of musical voabulary is rather bad, I hope you > understand > what I'd like to show you, here it goes: > > \version "2.12.3" > \score { > \relative c'' { > cis, > c % done right: There is "unsharp" symbol > cis % re-do another cis > c' % write c but higher this time -> annotation missing (a > musian would play a cis instead) > } > > \layout { } > } Hi! No, this is not a bug. This is standard engraving practice. Musicians should be aware of this convention: accidentals only apply to notes in the same measure and _at the same octave_. This is by far the most common convention, IMO. But many other conventions exists. You should have a look at NR 1.1.3 Displaying pitches > Automatic accidentals http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.13/Documentation/notation/displaying-pitches.html#automatic-accidentals and use #(set-accidental-style 'modern) for instance. > Unfortunately I haven't been able to compile latest stable from source > on maverick > yet. But I'd be happy to see if someone else also sees this (as a) bug > and then do another > try from source. :-) You do not need to compile from source. A simple shell script is provided to install easily LilyPond on various OS, including Ubuntu (use Linux x86). Go there for the latest development version release: http://lilypond.org/development.html Download "Linux x86: LilyPond 2.13.36-1" and then sudo sh lilypond-2.13.36-1.linux-x86.sh and here you are: lastest development version is now installed! Cheers, Xavier -- Xavier Scheuer ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug? Engraving forgets symbol
Mat Simon writes: > I'm quite sure the following minimal sample gets wrongly engraved with the > latest 2.12.3 release - that is packaged in Ubuntu 10.10 (amd64) > > My english in terms of musical voabulary is rather bad, I hope you > understand > what I'd like to show you, here it goes: > > \version "2.12.3" > \score { > \relative c'' { > cis, > c % done right: There is "unsharp" symbol > cis % re-do another cis > c' % write c but higher this time -> annotation missing (a > musian would play a cis instead) I don't think so. A musician would at most grumble. You can read the details in the lilypond notation manual, in the chapter "Automatic accidentals". -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug in 2.12.[23]
Yes, that solved my problem with the lyrics. Tricky this kind of things, because a measure follows the measure giving me a headache. Sorry that I got the wrong list, but it seemed to me that it was an "undocumented" feature... Thanks anyway. Herman Grootaers ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug in 2.12.[23]
hello On 03/08/2010 17:03, Herman Grootaers wrote: So I started to upgrade a number of scores I had already done and I discovered the following excerpt which does behave weird. It is in the alto-part of a four-voice a-capella choir-piece which in one bar is split. The lyrics however are not handled correctly, due to the fact that the alto-part is completely gone, but will be taken on in the next bar. If I reduce the excerpt to the offending part of the bar I get an error indicating that the alto-part is missing, although is printed. strange This behaviour is also in version 2.12.2, earlier versions I cannot remember if this was already in place. See attached output for 2.13.28 - I also get no errors reported. Does this help? James <>___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug in 2.12.[23]
This would appear to be a feature of the "implicit" voice creation, as described in the Notation Reference 1.5.2. If you explicitly name the voices: alt = \relative c'' { a2 << { \voiceTwo \stemDown \hs \ignore e2 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo a4( gis) } >> } I think you'll find you get what you want. For future reference, queries where it's not clear it's a bug are usually best sent to the lilypond-user group initially. -- Phil Holmes Bug Squad "Herman Grootaers" wrote in message news:loom.20100803t175510-...@post.gmane.org... I'm not top posting. Greetings all, I have recently restarted a project of myself, because I do have some free time to spare. So I started to upgrade a number of scores I had already done and I discovered the following excerpt which does behave weird. It is in the alto-part of a four-voice a-capella choir-piece which in one bar is split. The lyrics however are not handled correctly, due to the fact that the alto-part is completely gone, but will be taken on in the next bar. If I reduce the excerpt to the offending part of the bar I get an error indicating that the alto-part is missing, although is printed. strange This behaviour is also in version 2.12.2, earlier versions I cannot remember if this was already in place. Yours, Herman Grootaers Ps: I am subscribed to the bu-list, i.e. I do receive the mails from the bug- list. Lilypond-listing << \version "2.12.3" global = { \key g \major \time 4/4 } ignore = \override NoteColumn #'ignore-collision = ##t hs = \once \override NoteColumn #'force-hshift = #1.7 sop = \relative c'' { c2 \hs b } alt = \relative c'' { a2 << { \stemDown \hs \ignore e2 } \\ { a4( gis) } >> } ten = \relative c' { e2 d } bas = \relative c { e2 <> } koor = \lyricmode { bla bla } \score { \context ChoirStaff << \context Staff = "women" << \clef treble \set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \center-column { Soprano Alto } } \context Voice = "soprano" { \voiceOne << \global \sop >> } \context Voice = "alto" { \voiceTwo << \global \alt >> } \context Lyrics = alto { s1 } >> \context Staff = "men" << \clef bass \set Staff.instrumentName = \markup { \center-column { Tenor Bas } } \context Voice = "tenor" { \voiceOne << \global \ten >> } \context Voice = "bass" { \voiceTwo << \global \bas >> } >> \context Lyrics = alto \lyricsto alto \koor >> \layout { \context { \Staff } } } ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug - program acts strange if .ly file has special characters
Han-Wen, do we officially support such filenames? I created a file called foào.ly when I tried to compile it on the command-line, I typed in "f" and OSX produced lilypond foa\314\200o.ly which ended up with: Preprocessing graphical objects... Layout output to `foào.ps'... Converting to `foào.pdf'... `gs -q -dSAFER -dDEVICEWIDTHPOINTS=595.28 -dDEVICEHEIGHTPOINTS=841.89 -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -r1200 -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile="foa?\x80o.pdf" -c .setpdfwrite -f "foa?\x80o.ps"' failed (256) programming error: Parsed object should be dead: static scm_unused_struct* Prob::mark_smob(scm_unused_struct*) continuing, cross fingers ... (similar errors) While I was playing around with different ways to call the file, I came across this: lilypond fo\303\240o.ly which worked just fine. It looks like OSX's handling of utf8 filenames is a complete mess, but I don't have any experience with non-ascii text so maybe there's an easy fix. Should I add this to the tracker? Cheers, - Graham Griff Miller wrote: MacOS X on Intel Lilypond Version 2.11.21-1 (Build from Sat Mar 24 16:13:25) If my input file is named "La oración del torero.ly" then Lilypond churns forever when I do Compile->Typeset file . If I rename it "La oracion del torero.ly" it works fine. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
It should definitely not be part of the LilyPond package. One possibility is to use Werner's fix and include that in tetex-tiny. /Mats Bertalan Fodor wrote: So, what will happen? I'd like to package 2.4.2 for cygwin... Should I put ec.mf into the lilypond package? Or should it be in the tetex-tiny package? You lost me here. I thought you found that ecrm1000 should not be looked for at all? I tried Bertalan's example file here and the dvips command with $KPATHSEA_DEBUG set to -1, it does not search for ecrm1000, I'd gladly fix the Cygwin tetex installation, but I want to be sure to make the right fix and not add another bug. Bertalan, what does Mats's command give you? Can you send a (comressed) log file to the list? Jan. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe = ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
So, what will happen? I'd like to package 2.4.2 for cygwin... Should I put ec.mf into the lilypond package? Or should it be in the tetex-tiny package? You lost me here. I thought you found that ecrm1000 should not be looked for at all? I tried Bertalan's example file here and the dvips command with $KPATHSEA_DEBUG set to -1, it does not search for ecrm1000, I'd gladly fix the Cygwin tetex installation, but I want to be sure to make the right fix and not add another bug. Bertalan, what does Mats's command give you? Can you send a (comressed) log file to the list? Jan. ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
See Werner's answers! He knows these things much better than I do. /Mats Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: Mats Bengtsson writes: That is, as long as you don't want to use your teTeX installation to typeset anything else, I presume. In other words, the cygwin installation script could do such an ugly fix if tetex-tiny is installed but not tetex-base. You lost me here. I thought you found that ecrm1000 should not be looked for at all? I tried Bertalan's example file here and the dvips command with $KPATHSEA_DEBUG set to -1, it does not search for ecrm1000, I'd gladly fix the Cygwin tetex installation, but I want to be sure to make the right fix and not add another bug. Bertalan, what does Mats's command give you? Can you send a (comressed) log file to the list? Jan. -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe = ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
> > The TeX fallback font `ecrm1000' is only needed in TFM format, > > since we select T1 encoding to get the proper font mapping, but > > not a single font used in `t1cmr.fd' is accessed actually. IMHO > > it would be fully sufficient to do > > > > ln -s ecrm10.tfm ecrm1000.tfm > > > > which doesn't do any harm. > > That is, as long as you don't want to use your teTeX installation to > typeset anything else, I presume. In other words, the cygwin > installation script could do such an ugly fix if tetex-tiny is > installed but not tetex-base. This is not correct. My suggested solution always works, regardless of the used TeX distribution: . The file ecrm10.tfm from the ec-fonts-mftraced package is completely identical to ecrm1000.tfm if produced from the standard EC sources. . The search path for TFM files can contain multiple instances of the same file without conflict; normally the first one is used. In case the user decides to install EC fonts, it probably means that another incarnation of ecrm1000.tfm in a different directory is found by kpathsea (or another file searching library), but this is completely irrelevant for TeX since the files are the same. Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
Mats Bengtsson writes: > That is, as long as you don't want to use your teTeX installation > to typeset anything else, I presume. In other words, the cygwin > installation script could do such an ugly fix if tetex-tiny is > installed but not tetex-base. You lost me here. I thought you found that ecrm1000 should not be looked for at all? > I tried Bertalan's example file here and the dvips command with > $KPATHSEA_DEBUG set to -1, it does not search for ecrm1000, I'd gladly fix the Cygwin tetex installation, but I want to be sure to make the right fix and not add another bug. Bertalan, what does Mats's command give you? Can you send a (comressed) log file to the list? Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
Werner LEMBERG wrote: Because it seems that it's not installed automatically with lilypond. The question is: in what package should it be? The TeX fallback font `ecrm1000' is only needed in TFM format, since we select T1 encoding to get the proper font mapping, but not a single font used in `t1cmr.fd' is accessed actually. IMHO it would be fully sufficient to do ln -s ecrm10.tfm ecrm1000.tfm which doesn't do any harm. That is, as long as you don't want to use your teTeX installation to typeset anything else, I presume. In other words, the cygwin installation script could do such an ugly fix if tetex-tiny is installed but not tetex-base. /Mats ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
> Because it seems that it's not installed automatically with > lilypond. The question is: in what package should it be? The TeX fallback font `ecrm1000' is only needed in TFM format, since we select T1 encoding to get the proper font mapping, but not a single font used in `t1cmr.fd' is accessed actually. IMHO it would be fully sufficient to do ln -s ecrm10.tfm ecrm1000.tfm which doesn't do any harm. Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
The ecrm font files are included in the tetex-base package in cygwin but not in the tetex-tiny package which is selected automatically with lilypond. Still, I don't see any reason why lilypond 2.4.x should search for the default T1 encoded computer modern fonts. I tried Bertalan's example file here and the dvips command with $KPATHSEA_DEBUG set to -1, it does not search for ecrm1000, only ecrm10 and the feta fonts. I don't understand why it looks for ecrm1000 in the cygwin version (haven't installed that package yet). /Mats Bertalan Fodor wrote: Because it seems that it's not installed automatically with lilypond. The question is: in what package should it be? Why do you think that this is a bug? Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond -- = Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe = ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
Because it seems that it's not installed automatically with lilypond. The question is: in what package should it be? Why do you think that this is a bug? Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug
> With fontencoding set to T1 (for example with \encoding "TeX" it > seems to be default) at least on cygwin ecrm1000 is looked for, > despite there is no references in the tex file created. I think > this is because the default roman font maps to it and the default > font is always created, or there are 'silent' reference to it. Exactly. This is default LaTeX behaviour. If a font encoding is selected, it *always* sets up a fallback font for this encoding, and this ecrm1000. > If ecrm1000 is looked for also in other distribution I think this > may be some kind of bug. Why do you think that this is a bug? Werner ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Possible bug in property_op_to_music
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> It looks to me that the following line in property_op_to_music: >> >> if (op == ly_symbol2scm ("poppush")) >> m->set_property ("pop-first", SCM_BOOL_T); >> >> should instead be: >> >> if (tag == ly_symbol2scm ("poppush")) >> m->set_property ("pop-first", SCM_BOOL_T); >> >> Is this so, or am I overlooking something? > > yep - but I think this is not triggered, because \once is processed > separately. This is triggered, just not by \once. It is triggerd by "\override". -- Michael Welsh Duggan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in 1.6.4
I think the problem is a misprint of yours. When you say d,s you probably mean ds, The d,s is interpreted as a d, followed by a spacing note, that's why you get en extra (invisible) eight note in that bar. In general, I recommend to always insert a '|' in the input file where you expect to find a bar line. This bar check will be used in Lilypond to generate a warning as soon as a bar doesn't match the meter. At least I make so many typing mistakes that this is an invaluable help to quickly spot the mistakes. I know some other people on the list think it's a waste of typing, though. /Mats > Hi, > > I've recently started to use lilypond and I think that I've run into a > bug. > > I'm running the cygwin build of lilypond 1.6.4. > > The attached 2 files are a segement of the bass line for a piece that > I'm writing. In the 3/4 section of test1.ly, it only puts 5 8th notes > in measure 19, then it puts the remaining one in measure 20. When it > returns to 4/4, the beats continue to be off. > > In the file test2.ly, I've commented out measure 19 and everything else > works correctly. > > Since I am new to using lilypond, it's possible that I've made an > error, but I've tried to count the number of beats and I think that the > timing is correct. > > Other than this, so far I'm very impressed with this software. I've > been using a mixture of Cakewalk and Finale for several years to do > this type of work, but I've always found them to be ackward to do a > complete printout of my compositions and arrangements. > > Thank you, > Kirk Howe > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More > http://faith.yahoo.com > > > ___ Bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: possible bug in 1.6.4
Kirk Howe wrote: > a,8 a' d,s e fs a Try with a,8 a' ds, e fs a instead :-) ds is a note name - you cannot insert commands into the middle of a name. You should have noticed the natural sign in front of the d - and hence have realized that this was your problem. -Rune ___ Bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond