Re: Compound time signature style
Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes: If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? For example, 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Issue 3286: add single-C time signature style (issue 164830043 by nine.fierce.ballads at gmail.com)
I don’t recall that anybody so far has been able to explain how they know a piece is in 4/2 when it is denoted cut-C. Can you? as well as knowing whether a customary C (cut or uncut) signals 2/2 or 4/4 (or 1/1, see below). I maintain that the second Kyrie from Bach's Mass in B minor is in 4/2; I'm hesitating about the Gratias, leaning towards 4/2; I'd not oppose calling the Credo rather 2/1 than 4/2. (for fun look at Patrem omnipotentem: it's in cut, single-digit 2.) I found a little support for the idea that double cut-C is being used as 2/1 in the hymnal I have. Consider songs 2 and 3 from this 1844 hymnal: http://books.google.ca/books?id=t341RA7NAcIC . In that book they are in 2/1. (Would you have called them 4/2 if not for that? I probably would have.) The hymnal I have contains those two songs with identical music, but denoted with double cut-C time; and there are others I recognize, but I haven’t checked them as closely. look at song 4 (8, 12, 19, ...): it's in cut C, but I'd call it 1/1, if the previous ones were 2/1. I'd say that all songs are in the (sort of) same metre, but songs where all lines have an even number of semibreves, are barred by two, the others by one, and the time signature just reflects this barring. p ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes: If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? For example, 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, so either 2 + 3 4 - + - 8 4 in the case where there is no common denomiator, or 2 + 3 + 4 - 4 in the upper case. I'd rather not use the C symbol in these cases. Marc ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, so either […] I'd rather not use the C symbol in these cases. Bad example. What if it were something like 6 - + ¢ 8 Still no? You don’t have to answer. I’ll leave the output numeric and add cases with 2/2 and 4/4 to the regression tests. — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:49, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote: Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes: If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? For example, 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, ... It could be interpreted as a compound meter 2+3 followed by one in 4, indicating that the metric accent on 4 should be stronger than the one on 3. This is different from 2+3+4, which means that it is unspecified, or possibly that they are about the same. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
Am 04.11.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Hans Aberg: On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:49, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote: Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes: If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? For example, 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, ... It could be interpreted as a compound meter 2+3 followed by one in 4, indicating that the metric accent on 4 should be stronger than the one on 3. This is different from 2+3+4, which means that it is unspecified, or possibly that they are about the same. Ok, but this is something I would indicate by a on the first beat of the 4/4 part and simile for the rest – or some explanation for the musician ... Marc ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
Am 04.11.2014 um 12:55 schrieb Dan Eble: 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, so either […] I'd rather not use the C symbol in these cases. Bad example. What if it were something like 6 - + ¢ 8 Still no? You don’t have to answer. I’ll leave the output numeric and add cases with 2/2 and 4/4 to the regression tests. I'd still say no, but that's rather hypothetically because I need complex meter not very often (I composed a piece in 4/4+3/8 some time ago and choosed the numeric way ...) Marc — Dan ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Compound time signature style
On 4 Nov 2014, at 19:52, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote: Am 04.11.2014 um 15:18 schrieb Hans Aberg: On 4 Nov 2014, at 10:49, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote: Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup: Dan Eble d...@faithful.be writes: If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature respected the time signature style, would that qualify as useful or as undesirable? For example, 2 + 32 + 3 4 - + C vs.- + - 44 4 Undesirable in my book. I overlooked the fact that the denominators are the same, ... It could be interpreted as a compound meter 2+3 followed by one in 4, indicating that the metric accent on 4 should be stronger than the one on 3. This is different from 2+3+4, which means that it is unspecified, or possibly that they are about the same. Ok, but this is something I would indicate by a on the first beat of the 4/4 part and simile for the rest – or some explanation for the musician … One can see it on the beaming, but in Balkan music, one may not bother with the details. So a rachenitsa 7/16, 7 = 2+2+3, typically have just that as time signature, and may be beamed as 4+3. One interesting alternative is to write 2+2+3 over the time signature. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Erroneus error message or what?
For information: I compile both lilypond-dev and fontforge from git sources, situated in /usr/local/src and the executables in /usr/local/bin/ - (in debian testing, not ubuntu). Lately, building lilypond, I have occationally encountered a strange error-massage: ERROR: Please install required programs: /usr/local/bin/fontforge = 20110222 (installed: 3ec845c4fe718af4908ce2dc25b66d0594930) BUT: There IS installed a version of fontforge (with the quoted hash, at the specified location, and it is definitely newer than 2011: address@hidden:/usr/local/src/fontforge# fontforge --version Copyright (c) 2000-2014 by George Williams. See AUTHORS for Contributors. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html with many parts BSD http://fontforge.org/license.html. Please read LICENSE. Based on sources from 16:45 CET 1-Nov-2014-ML-D. Based on source from git with hash:e3ec845c4fe718af4908ce2dc25b66d0594930cc fontforge 16:45 CET 1-Nov-2014 libfontforge 20141101 Interestingly; if I ignore the error message, and just continue building, using the error-message-prone version of fontforge, lilypond compiles and installs without errors. In the long run this is an insecure situation. Can it be remedied? -- yours, Villum Sejersen Nørregade 1 A DK-4500 Nykøbing Sjælland mobil +45 30 34 03 44 ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Erroneus error message or what?
Lately, building lilypond, I have occationally encountered a strange
error-massage:
ERROR: Please install required programs: /usr/local/bin/fontforge =
20110222 (installed: 3ec845c4fe718af4908ce2dc25b66d0594930)
BUT: There IS installed a version of fontforge (with the quoted hash,
at the specified location, and it is definitely newer than 2011):
Exactly this is the problem: LilyPond's configure script doesn't
properly parse the current fontforge version string.
In the long run this is an insecure situation. Can it be remedied?
Well, I guess that fontforge will provide a `normalized' version
string as soon as there is a new, official release – right now, the
current FontForge test releases are *really* far from stable. Until
then, you might try the attached patch.[*]
Werner
[*] This patch was rejected because of philosophical reasons (to which
I agree basically). However, I don't have time to improve it.
From 995a2a66f0919d13ecae255f854ceedfe83c4172 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Werner Lemberg w...@gnu.org
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 23:29:29 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] [stepmake] Rewrite STEPMAKE_GET_VERSION.
The old version wasn't able to handle current git versions of fontforge
correctly: fontforge now emits different version data to both stderr and
stdout which confused the macro (it erroneously caught the git commit ID
instead of the date).
---
aclocal.m4 | 75 +-
1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
diff --git a/aclocal.m4 b/aclocal.m4
index 87d8474..1e7ebf9 100644
--- a/aclocal.m4
+++ b/aclocal.m4
@@ -14,42 +14,57 @@ AC_DEFUN(STEPMAKE_GET_EXECUTABLE, [
type -p $1 2/dev/null | tail -n 1 | awk '{print $NF}'
])
+dnl We use autoconf's diversion support to define a shell function for
+dnl getting a program's version. This avoids issues with nested `...`
+dnl since $(...), which would allow nesting naturally, is not
+dnl supported in all shells.
-# Get version string from executable ($1)
-AC_DEFUN(STEPMAKE_GET_VERSION, [
-## $1 --version 21 | grep -v '^$' | head -n 1 | awk '{print $NF}'
-##
-## ARG.
-## Workaround for broken Debian gcc version string:
-## gcc (GCC) 3.1.1 20020606 (Debian prerelease)
-##
-## -V: Workaround for python
+m4_divert_push([INIT_PREPARE])
-changequote(, )#dnl
+changequote(, )
-## Assume and hunt for dotted version multiplet.
-## use eval trickery, because we cannot use multi-level $() instead of ``
-## for compatibility reasons.
+# in: $_test_prog
+# out: $_ver
-## grab the first version number in --version output.
-eval _ver=\\`($1 --version || $1 -V) 21 |
- grep -E '(^| )[0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9]' |
- head -n 1 |
- tr ' ' '\n' |
- sed 's/\([0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9.]*\).*/\1/g' |
- grep -E '(^| )[0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9]' |
- head -n 1\`\
-
-if test -z $_ver; then
-## If empty, try date [fontforge]
-eval _ver=\\`($1 --version || $1 -V) 21 | grep '[0-9]\{6,8\}' \
- | head -n 1 \
- | sed -e 's/^[^.0-9]*//' -e 's/[^.0-9]*$//'\`\
-fi
-echo $_ver
-changequote([, ])#dnl
+stepmake_get_version ()
+{
+ ## Grab the first version number in --version or -V output.
+ ## First scan stdin, then stderr.
+ __ver=`($_test_prog --version 2 /dev/null \
+ || $_test_prog -V 2 /dev/null; \
+ $_test_prog --version 1 /dev/null \
+ || $_test_prog -V 1 /dev/null) 21`
+
+ ## Get dotted version multiplet.
+ _ver=`echo $__ver \
+| tr ' ' '\n' \
+| grep -E '^[0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9]' \
+| head -n 1 \
+| sed 's/\([0-9][0-9]*\.[0-9][0-9.]*\).*/\1/'`
+
+ ## Otherwise, try date consisting of 6-8 digits.
+ if test -z $_ver; then
+_ver=`echo $__ver \
+ | tr ' ' '\n' \
+ | grep '^[0-9]\{6,8\}' \
+ | head -n 1 \
+ | sed 's/\([0-9][0-9]*\).*/\1/'`
+ fi
+}
+
+changequote([, ])
+
+m4_divert_pop([INIT_PREPARE])
+
+
+# Get version string from executable ($1)
+AC_DEFUN(STEPMAKE_GET_VERSION, [
+ _test_prog=$1
+ stepmake_get_version
+ echo $_ver
])
+
# Calculate simplistic numeric version from version string ($1)
# As yet, we have no need for something more elaborate.
AC_DEFUN(STEPMAKE_NUMERIC_VERSION, [
--
1.8.1.4
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
