Re: Primo/secondo layout

[Abraham Lee]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 12:06 PM Jean Abou Samra  wrote:

> Le mardi 21 mars 2023 à 12:00 -0600, Abraham Lee a écrit :
>
> I think the only thing that Dorico has advertised that I haven't figured
> out how to do automagically in LP is the Primo/Secondo layout for
> multi-person piano scores (or similar). Does anyone know of a way?
>
> There's a long-standing feature request about it, #902
> .
>
Yep.


> It'd be tough to do in Scheme since it touches the page breaking stuff,
> which is essentially C++-only. It's *probably* not hard to implement in
> the C++ code, just a bit tedious.
>
I am amazed that you have enough insight into the code to make that
observation. Like I said, not a huge problem for me. A person could create
this score format manually and piece them together with PDF manipulation
tools, but an automated solution would be extremely satisfying.

Primo/secondo layout

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le mardi 21 mars 2023 à 12:00 -0600, Abraham Lee a écrit :

> I think the only thing that Dorico has advertised that I haven't figured out 
> how to do automagically in LP is the Primo/Secondo layout for multi-person 
> piano scores (or similar). Does anyone know of a way? 

There's a long-standing feature request about it, 
[#902](https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/902).

It'd be tough to do in Scheme since it touches the page breaking stuff, which 
is essentially C++-only. It's *probably* not hard to implement in the C++ code, 
just a bit tedious.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Is it time to update the Finale 2008 sample in Essay?

[Abraham Lee]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 4:11 PM David Kastrup  wrote:

> Han-Wen Nienhuys  writes:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 5:27 PM Abraham Lee 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks, Jean, for doing that. I was hoping for a more public discussion
> to
> >> see if creating an issue is even warranted. The essay is a historical
> >> document, to be sure, so updating the comparison files might not be
> needed
> >> at all.
> >
> > I agree to this. It is better to simply put a small intro to the essay
> > that gives the context.
> >
> > We could then add an updated preface/postscriptum that puts it in
> > context for 2023. To note, a lot of modern music engravers have taken
> > inspiration from the LilyPond attitude to engraving. The Dorico blog
> > posts have been quite explicit about it, and maybe we could ask the
> > MuseScore folks for comments too.
>
> For better or worse, I think the main selling point of LilyPond these
> days is not as much quality as workflow.
>

I think the engraving quality aspect is definitely still there in many
ways, but maybe a bit more nuanced and not so obvious to the casual user
(i.e., only if you know what to look for).

I do, agree, however, that the workflow is a HUGE reason I still use LP for
anything and everything I need to create, especially when I know someone
else is going to use it. Is LP always the fastest method to enter content?
No it's not, but does it allow some of the most amazing flexibility when
creating multiple kinds of scores using the same source content?
Unequivocally yes! No other software comes even close. I think the only
thing that Dorico has advertised that I haven't figured out how to do
automagically in LP is the Primo/Secondo layout for multi-person piano
scores (or similar). Does anyone know of a way? It's not a big deal to me
since I almost never create them, but would be cool to figure out at some
point.

Best,
Abraham

Re: Differences in `web.html`

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/21/23, 10:11 AM, 
"lilypond-devel-bounces+carl.d.sorensen+digest=gmail@gnu.org" 
 wrote:
Le mardi 21 mars 2023 à 04:11 +, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> Thanks for the explanations.  Do I understand correctly that we have a
> nifty feature (namely showing the file size to download) that stays
> unused because it would be too expensive for deployment, both CPU- and
> time-wise?

Technically, you can see it on 
[https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/notation.html](https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/notation.html),
 as opposed to 
[https://lilypond.org/notation.html](https://lilypond.org/notation.html). Not 
sure if anybody uses that, though.

When I go to your links, I only see the size of the PDF, not the HTML.

Carl

Re: Differences in `web.html`

[Jean Abou Samra]

Le mardi 21 mars 2023 à 04:11 +, Werner LEMBERG a écrit :
> Thanks for the explanations.  Do I understand correctly that we have a
> nifty feature (namely showing the file size to download) that stays
> unused because it would be too expensive for deployment, both CPU- and
> time-wise?

Technically, you can see it on 
[https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/notation.html](https://lilypond.org/doc/v2.25/Documentation/web/notation.html),
 as opposed to 
[https://lilypond.org/notation.html](https://lilypond.org/notation.html). Not 
sure if anybody uses that, though.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Make gitlab automatically add MR ID to commit message(s)?

[Werner LEMBERG]

> The method I use is to go to
> [https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commits/master](https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commits/master)
> and search for the commit's title line using the search box in the
> top right.  For example,

OK, thanks!


Werner