Re: Autobeaming and cadenzas (was: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > I agree that a revert would be more appropriate. However, a revert would > be very difficult to accomplish, because there is no easy way to save the > "original" value. The value is only known in the translation stage as a > context property, so we can't really save the value for use in the parsing > stage. > > Right now, the benefit/time ration isn't high enough for me to code the > revert. > > I'm fine to have an enhancement request to implement it as a revert, > however. Reported here: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1304 Thanks, Patrick ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Autobeaming and cadenzas (was: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11)
On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 10/5/10 11:44 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>>
>>> I think a revert would be more appropriate.
>>
>> I agree that a revert would be more appropriate. However, a revert would
>> be very difficult to accomplish, because there is no easy way to save the
>> "original" value. The value is only known in the translation stage as a
>> context property, so we can't really save the value for use in the parsing
>> stage.
>>
>> Right now, the benefit/time ration isn't high enough for me to code the
>> revert.
>>
>> I'm fine to have an enhancement request to implement it as a revert,
>> however.
>
> Can't we just use \unset instead? Like
>
> diff --git a/ly/property-init.ly b/ly/property-init.ly
> index 5724004..9f7876d 100644
> --- a/ly/property-init.ly
> +++ b/ly/property-init.ly
> @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ cadenzaOn = {
> cadenzaOff = {
> \set Timing.timing = ##t
> \set Timing.measurePosition = #ZERO-MOMENT
> - \set Timing.autoBeaming = ##t
> + \unset Timing.autoBeaming
> }
Hmm, after testing a little more, that didn't work as I expected it
to. I don't use \unset very often.
Thanks,
Patrick
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Autobeaming and cadenzas (was: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11)
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 10/5/10 11:44 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>>> On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote:
If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off
autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas?
>>>
>>> The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off
>>> autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference.
>>>
>>> I think this is the right thing to do.
>>
>> I think a revert would be more appropriate.
>
> I agree that a revert would be more appropriate. However, a revert would
> be very difficult to accomplish, because there is no easy way to save the
> "original" value. The value is only known in the translation stage as a
> context property, so we can't really save the value for use in the parsing
> stage.
>
> Right now, the benefit/time ration isn't high enough for me to code the
> revert.
>
> I'm fine to have an enhancement request to implement it as a revert,
> however.
Can't we just use \unset instead? Like
diff --git a/ly/property-init.ly b/ly/property-init.ly
index 5724004..9f7876d 100644
--- a/ly/property-init.ly
+++ b/ly/property-init.ly
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ cadenzaOn = {
cadenzaOff = {
\set Timing.timing = ##t
\set Timing.measurePosition = #ZERO-MOMENT
- \set Timing.autoBeaming = ##t
+ \unset Timing.autoBeaming
}
Thanks,
Patrick
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: Autobeaming and cadenzas (was: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11)
On 10/5/10 11:44 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote: > Carl Sorensen writes: > >> On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote: >>> >>> If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off >>> autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? >> >> The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off >> autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference. >> >> I think this is the right thing to do. > > I think a revert would be more appropriate. I agree that a revert would be more appropriate. However, a revert would be very difficult to accomplish, because there is no easy way to save the "original" value. The value is only known in the translation stage as a context property, so we can't really save the value for use in the parsing stage. Right now, the benefit/time ration isn't high enough for me to code the revert. I'm fine to have an enhancement request to implement it as a revert, however. Thanks, Carl ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
On Wed 06 Oct 2010, 07:44 David Kastrup wrote: > Carl Sorensen writes: > > > On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote: > >> > >> If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off > >> autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? > > > > The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off > > autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference. > > > > I think this is the right thing to do. > > I think a revert would be more appropriate. Please, why?.. ps. I do believe that another issue may be pushed instead of reverting, enhancement request -- how autobeaming should work in cadenzas. Or, may be, enev another one --- it should be documented _how_ autobeaming works in cadenzas _now_? (before 1289). But for the moment it seems to be quite correct -- to switch autobeaming off and let user switch it on and specify beaming rules. I am not sure that i understand what's i am talking about .) But 1289 looks reasonable. Sorry for the noise. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
On Wed 06 Oct 2010, 08:50 David Kastrup wrote: > "Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes: > >> I think a revert would be more appropriate. > > Please, why?.. > > Not a revert of the commit. A \revert to the setting before the cadenza. Oh, understood. Sorry for the noise :-) And thank you. -- Dmytro O. Redchuk Bug Squad ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
"Dmytro O. Redchuk" writes: > On Wed 06 Oct 2010, 07:44 David Kastrup wrote: >> Carl Sorensen writes: >> >> > On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote: >> >> >> >> If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off >> >> autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? >> > >> > The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off >> > autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference. >> > >> > I think this is the right thing to do. >> >> I think a revert would be more appropriate. > Please, why?.. Not a revert of the commit. A \revert to the setting before the cadenza. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
Carl Sorensen writes: > On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote: >> >> If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off >> autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? > > The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off > autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference. > > I think this is the right thing to do. I think a revert would be more appropriate. -- David Kastrup ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
On 10/5/10 5:50 PM, "Keith E OHara" wrote: > Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:25:35 -0700, bug-lilypond-request wrote: >> >> Comment #1 on issue 1289 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Autobeaming in cadenza (shoud >> be switched off?) >> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1289 >> >> Fixed with commit f691c163e11c055809ebb5c7cb56359c14e4b92d >> >> autobeaming for the Timing context is disabled by \cadenzaOn and enabled by >> \cadenzaOff >> > > You sure you want to change the behavior? Yes. The current behavior was undocumented and unintended, and led to spurious ouptut, as you so thoughtfully pointed out. > > The issue had benign effect in four places in the documentation alone. Benign but wrong. > > I don't think anybody has complained about the beams that appear. > (I complained that some disappeared, but in the context of alpha testing, and > I tried to take that back.) > Probably nobody has. But when I proposed a real correction, i.e. to make autobeaming follow the beat from the existing time signature, I was told that behavior was incorrect. And looking at the resources on the web, I agree that it's incorrect. I don't think we should ever have LilyPond do the "easy thing" when it's not correct. If somebody wants autobeaming in a cadenza, they can turn it on. And then they can set it to do whatever they want it to do. > Googling "cadenzaOn autobeamOff" shows that several users figured out how to > turn them off for themselves. > > If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off > autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? > The CHANGES file informs the user that they will need to turn off autobeaming manually after the cadenza, as does the notation reference. I think this is the right thing to do. Thanks, Carl > -Keith > ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
Re: bug-lilypond Digest, Vol 95, Issue 11
Tue, 05 Oct 2010 13:25:35 -0700, bug-lilypond-request wrote: Comment #1 on issue 1289 by Carl.D.Sorensen: Autobeaming in cadenza (shoud be switched off?) http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1289 Fixed with commit f691c163e11c055809ebb5c7cb56359c14e4b92d autobeaming for the Timing context is disabled by \cadenzaOn and enabled by \cadenzaOff You sure you want to change the behavior? The issue had benign effect in four places in the documentation alone. I don't think anybody has complained about the beams that appear. (I complained that some disappeared, but in the context of alpha testing, and I tried to take that back.) Googling "cadenzaOn autobeamOff" shows that several users figured out how to turn them off for themselves. If \cadenzaOff turns autobeaming on, then what about scores that turn off autobeaming for the whole piece, but then (mis-)use short cadenzas? -Keith ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
