Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
Thanks Carl,
yes, the issue is related to relative mode
Il giorno gio, 21/04/2011 alle 07.13 -0600, Carl Sorensen ha scritto:
>
> put an octave check on the second chord. That should solve the
> problem.
>
> 8
I made several tries but none worked.
This works:
\octaveCheck c'
\chordGlissando
8
(full snippet attached)
Maybe it could be added in the Documentation (NR 2.4.1, Default
tablatures)?
Also, I have a nitpick suggestion: is it possible to make the following
sentence more "visible"? A warning/note maybe?
"String numbers are necessary for TabStaff because automatic string
calculations are different for chords and for single notes, and
\chordGlissando draws lines between single notes."
In the attached snippet you can see that one more bar is added in chord
glissando if string numbers are not indicated. I think that users
should be warned about this possible error.
Thanks,
Federico
\version "2.13.60"
nonRelativeInput = {
\chordGlissando
8
% octave is OK
\chordGlissando
8
}
relativeInput = \relative c' {
\chordGlissando
8
% need octave check, otherwise it jumps one octave higher
\octaveCheck c'
\chordGlissando
8
}
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff { \clef "G_8" \nonRelativeInput }
\new TabStaff { \clef "moderntab" \nonRelativeInput }
>>
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff { \clef "G_8" \relativeInput }
\new TabStaff { \clef "moderntab" \relativeInput }
>>
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:52:52PM +0200, Federico Bruni wrote: > I made several tries but none worked. > This works: > > \octaveCheck c' > \chordGlissando > 8 > > > (full snippet attached) > > Maybe it could be added in the Documentation (NR 2.4.1, Default > tablatures)? I'd be happy to have that small example added. The "full snippet" is too long for the docs unless you really need that extra material. > Also, I have a nitpick suggestion: is it possible to make the following > sentence more "visible"? A warning/note maybe? > > "String numbers are necessary for TabStaff because automatic string > calculations are different for chords and for single notes, and > \chordGlissando draws lines between single notes." That seems fine. I see that you've done some Italian translations, so you clearly know how to use git. Could you create a patch for these two items, modifying the English documentation rather than the Italian docs? Cheers, - Graham ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
Il giorno sab, 23/04/2011 alle 19.43 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 04:52:52PM +0200, Federico Bruni wrote:
> > I made several tries but none worked.
> > This works:
> >
> > \octaveCheck c'
> > \chordGlissando
> > 8
> >
> >
> > (full snippet attached)
> >
> > Maybe it could be added in the Documentation (NR 2.4.1, Default
> > tablatures)?
>
> I'd be happy to have that small example added. The "full snippet"
> is too long for the docs unless you really need that extra
> material.
>
The snippet was long just to demonstrate that the issue happens only in
relative mode. But I can make it smaller.
I might add these lines in notation/fretted-strings.itely, after the
include of chord-glissando-in-tablature.ly:
##
When chordGlissando is used in relative mode more than once, all chord
glissandi following the first one must be preceded by an octave
check. Otherwise the notes in these chords are raised by one octave.
@lilypond[quote,ragged-right,verbatim]
\new TabStaff \relative c' {
\chordGlissando
8
\octaveCheck c'
\chordGlissando
8
\octaveCheck c'
\chordGlissando
8
}
@end lilypond
###
Or should I rather edit
Documentation/snippets/new/chord-glissando-in-tablature.ly?
One more question: a warning appears when I compile this snippet. Is it
ok for docs?
warning: Failed octave check, got: c''
\octaveCheck c'
Let me know and then I'll make the patch.
Thanks,
Federico
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
On 4/24/11 4:09 PM, "Federico Bruni" wrote:
I find it simpler to just do
\new TabStaff \relative c' {
\chordGlissando
8
\chordGlissando
8
}
It still gets the warning, but I think it's easier than the \octaveCheck
form.
Thanks,
Carl
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
Il giorno dom, 24/04/2011 alle 19.43 -0600, Carl Sorensen ha scritto:
> I find it simpler to just do
> \new TabStaff \relative c' {
> \chordGlissando
> 8
> \chordGlissando
> 8
> }
>
> It still gets the warning, but I think it's easier than the
> \octaveCheck
> form.
>
I agree, but I thought it didn't work. It works indeed, if only = is
used (without '): https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
Il giorno lun, 25/04/2011 alle 00.09 +0200, Federico Bruni ha scritto:
> Or should I rather edit
> Documentation/snippets/new/chord-glissando-in-tablature.ly?
I've changed my mind and I think that I should edit this file instead of
fretted-strings.itely.
In the meanwhile I've realized that relative mode triggers another error
when chordGlissando moves down (from higher to lower pitches). Pitches
are correct, but glissandi are in a mess.
See chord-glissando-down.ly attached.
There's a workaround for this error?
I think that documentation should cover this issue as well (if there's
not a workaround, we might say that a chordGlissando "moving back"
should be entered in absolute mode?).
Thanks,
Federico
\version "2.13.60"
relativeMode = \relative c' {
\chordGlissando
8
}
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff { \clef "G_8" \relativeMode }
\new TabStaff { \clef "moderntab" \relativeMode }
>>
absoluteMode = {
\chordGlissando
8
}
\new StaffGroup <<
\new Staff { \clef "G_8" \absoluteMode }
\new TabStaff { \clef "moderntab" \absoluteMode }
>>
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
On 4/25/11 11:26 AM, "Federico Bruni" wrote: > Il giorno lun, 25/04/2011 alle 00.09 +0200, Federico Bruni ha scritto: >> Or should I rather edit >> Documentation/snippets/new/chord-glissando-in-tablature.ly? > > I've changed my mind and I think that I should edit this file instead of > fretted-strings.itely. > > In the meanwhile I've realized that relative mode triggers another error > when chordGlissando moves down (from higher to lower pitches). Pitches > are correct, but glissandi are in a mess. > See chord-glissando-down.ly attached. > > There's a workaround for this error? > I think that documentation should cover this issue as well (if there's > not a workaround, we might say that a chordGlissando "moving back" > should be entered in absolute mode?). It looks to me like the proper documentation is a warning that says "chordGlissando is unreliable in relative mode. It is recommended to be always used in absolute mode." A bug report should be posted. We don't normally list bugs as warnings, so maybe once we list the bug we can't have the warning. It appears to me right now that chordGlissando is a sufficiently rough hack that it should probably be removed from the distribution and just be present in the LSR. Thanks, Carl ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
On 11-04-25 11:33 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: On 4/25/11 11:26 AM, "Federico Bruni" wrote: Il giorno lun, 25/04/2011 alle 00.09 +0200, Federico Bruni ha scritto: Or should I rather edit Documentation/snippets/new/chord-glissando-in-tablature.ly? I've changed my mind and I think that I should edit this file instead of fretted-strings.itely. In the meanwhile I've realized that relative mode triggers another error when chordGlissando moves down (from higher to lower pitches). Pitches are correct, but glissandi are in a mess. See chord-glissando-down.ly attached. There's a workaround for this error? I think that documentation should cover this issue as well (if there's not a workaround, we might say that a chordGlissando "moving back" should be entered in absolute mode?). It looks to me like the proper documentation is a warning that says "chordGlissando is unreliable in relative mode. It is recommended to be always used in absolute mode." A bug report should be posted. We don't normally list bugs as warnings, so maybe once we list the bug we can't have the warning. It appears to me right now that chordGlissando is a sufficiently rough hack that it should probably be removed from the distribution and just be present in the LSR. Thanks, Carl Should this be a new issue, Carl, or should I just add this message to issue 1617? Colin Campbell -- The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. -Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd US President (1882-1945) ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: emproving Documentation about chordGlissando [WAS:consecutive chordGlissando]
> It appears to me right now that chordGlissando is a sufficiently rough hack > that it should probably be removed from the distribution and just be present > in the LSR. +1. I will have time this weekend to work on an implementation that uses a context property to control how glissandi are typeset for chords. Cheers, MS ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
