Re: Possible bug(s) with vertical alignment on Dynamics staff

2018-08-31 Thread Thomas Morley
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

2018-08-31 Thread Peter Toye
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

2018-08-31 Thread Malte Meyn

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

2018-04-23 Thread James Lowe
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

2018-04-21 Thread Knute Snortum
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

2018-04-21 Thread James Lowe
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

2015-12-28 Thread David Kastrup
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

2015-08-17 Thread Trevor Daniels

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

2015-08-17 Thread Trevor Daniels

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

2015-08-16 Thread Simon Albrecht

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

2015-08-16 Thread Mats Bengtsson


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

2015-08-16 Thread Mats Bengtsson
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

2015-08-16 Thread 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. 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

2015-08-16 Thread Simon Albrecht

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

2015-05-11 Thread James Lowe
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

2014-06-14 Thread David Kastrup
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

2014-06-14 Thread James
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

2014-06-02 Thread David Kastrup
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

2014-06-02 Thread Urs Liska

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

2014-06-02 Thread Brian Eve
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

2014-06-02 Thread Phil Holmes
"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

2014-06-02 Thread Urs Liska

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

2014-06-02 Thread Brian Eve
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

2013-02-16 Thread Colin Hall

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

2013-02-08 Thread Richard Lanyon
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

2013-02-08 Thread Colin Hall

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

2013-02-08 Thread pls
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?

2012-06-10 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-10 Thread Colin Hall
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?

2012-06-10 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-10 Thread Colin Hall

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?

2012-06-10 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-09 Thread Mark Mathias
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?

2012-06-08 Thread Sami Amiris

> 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?

2012-06-08 Thread Colin Hall
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?

2012-06-08 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-07 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-07 Thread -Eluze


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?

2012-06-07 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-07 Thread -Eluze


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?

2012-06-07 Thread Sami Amiris
-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?

2012-06-07 Thread -Eluze


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?

2012-06-07 Thread Sami Amiris

> 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?

2012-06-07 Thread -Eluze


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?

2012-06-07 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-06 Thread Colin Hall
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?

2012-06-06 Thread Sami - Vasileios Amiris
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?

2012-06-06 Thread Sami Amiris
> 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?

2012-06-06 Thread 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

___
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?

2012-06-06 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-06 Thread David Kastrup
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?

2012-06-05 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-05 Thread David Kastrup
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?

2012-06-05 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-05 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-05 Thread Sami Amiris
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?

2012-06-05 Thread Janek Warchoł
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?

2012-06-05 Thread David Kastrup
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

2012-02-12 Thread David Kastrup
"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

2012-02-12 Thread Phil Holmes
- 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

2012-02-12 Thread David Kastrup
"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

2012-02-12 Thread Graham Percival
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

2012-02-06 Thread -Eluze


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

2012-02-06 Thread David Kastrup
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

2012-02-06 Thread David Kastrup
-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

2012-02-06 Thread -Eluze


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

2012-02-06 Thread David Kastrup
-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

2012-02-06 Thread -Eluze


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

2011-03-21 Thread Francisco Vila
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

2011-03-20 Thread 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 }
  >>
}

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

2011-03-20 Thread Francisco Vila
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

2011-03-19 Thread Wim van Dommelen
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

2010-11-04 Thread Patrick McCarty
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

2010-10-25 Thread Xavier Scheuer
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

2010-10-25 Thread David Kastrup
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]

2010-08-04 Thread Herman Grootaers
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]

2010-08-03 Thread James

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]

2010-08-03 Thread Phil Holmes
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

2007-04-08 Thread Graham Percival

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

2004-11-25 Thread Mats Bengtsson
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

2004-11-24 Thread Bertalan Fodor
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

2004-11-18 Thread Mats Bengtsson
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

2004-11-17 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> > 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

2004-11-17 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
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

2004-11-17 Thread Mats Bengtsson

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

2004-11-17 Thread Werner LEMBERG

> 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

2004-11-17 Thread Mats Bengtsson
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

2004-11-16 Thread Bertalan Fodor
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

2004-11-16 Thread Werner LEMBERG

> 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

2004-05-14 Thread Michael Welsh Duggan
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

2002-10-14 Thread Mats Bengtsson

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

2002-10-14 Thread Rune Zedeler

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