Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/03/07 19:48:23, J_lowe wrote: Layout wise - Looks fine. Colin, From: Colin Campbell [mailto:c...@shaw.ca] Sent: 10 March 2011 13:57 To: James Lowe Subject: Fwd: part combine doc patch Good morning, James Attached is a patch which needs pushing, if you would oblige --- Pushed as commit d0c8e3162e9d2c0c7195ce8d58e3dd63bf57aca4 In case you want to mention this on Reitveld? James http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Layout wise - Looks fine. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
LGTM, apart from a minor nitpick in original text
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#oldcode821
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:821: @qq{a2}.
@q{a2} for consistency
or change the quotes above to @qq{}
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode871 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:871: previous part combining mechanism. Actually, it never returns to the previous mechanism, but rather to the default built-in mechanism (just like \revert always resets a grob property to the default an not to the value before the previous \override). http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/03/06 12:13:15, Reinhold wrote: http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/22001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode871 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:871: previous part combining mechanism. Actually, it never returns to the previous mechanism, but rather to the default built-in mechanism (just like \revert always resets a grob property to the default an not to the value before the previous \override). Ah, I was thinking that \partcombineautomatic once would go automatic for one note, then return to whatever was in force before it was called. If you would confirm that, I'll reword the explanation to suit. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Patch revised to remove the doc-section.sh bits which were pushed separately. The remainder is just the partcombine explanation. Ordinarily, I suppose this needn't go on reitveld, but wotthehell archie, it started here so I'm putting the last bit up to close out the process. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/20001/scripts/auxiliar/doc-section.sh File scripts/auxiliar/doc-section.sh (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/20001/scripts/auxiliar/doc-section.sh#newcode33 scripts/auxiliar/doc-section.sh:33: FROMDIR=$HOME/lilypond-git I totally agree that this should be done, but please not in the same patch as doc stuff. I'll do this right now, separately. This might cause merge problems for you, but I think it'll be cleaner in the long run. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
RE: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Hello, From: lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org [lilypond-devel-bounces+james.lowe=datacore@gnu.org] on behalf of pkx1...@gmail.com [pkx1...@gmail.com] Sent: 26 February 2011 06:52 To: colinpkcampb...@gmail.com; reinhold.kainho...@gmail.com Cc: re...@codereview.appspotmail.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056) On 2011/02/24 04:29:24, Colin Campbell Perhaps I should add something like: decide, but the results may need adjustment in some cases.? Yes that sounds like a better way of putting it. --- Actually thinking about it more would it make more sense to have the auto function listed first then add the words ... May need some manual adjustment.' and then list the rest? James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Actually thinking about it more would it make more sense to have the auto function listed first then add the words ... May need some manual adjustment.' and then list the rest? James I like that very much, James, thanks! A question for Reinhold, though: do I gather correctly that \partcombine is applied to a Staff, and turns the combining mechanism on, while \partcombineAutomatic is applied to a single Voice? That being so, does it turn off a previous \partcombineApart, e.g.? http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/02/26 20:01:39, Colin Campbell wrote: I like that very much, James, thanks! A question for Reinhold, though: do I gather correctly that \partcombine is applied to a Staff, and turns the combining mechanism on, while \partcombineAutomatic is applied to a single Voice? That being so, does it turn off a previous \partcombineApart, e.g.? I would say that \partcombine is a function that applies to two music expressions. It creates Voices as necessary for the combined music. \partcombineAutomatic applies to the combined music at a given musical moment, and applies to both of the arguments to \partcombine at that time. The reason I would not say that \partcombine applies to a staff is that it doesn't set anything special for the Staff. It converts two separate music expressions into a set of music expressions necessary to support the appropriate combined Voices. Carl http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Am Samstag, 26. Februar 2011, um 21:01:40 schrieben Sie: A question for Reinhold, though: do I gather correctly that \partcombine is applied to a Staff, and turns the combining mechanism on, while \partcombineAutomatic is applied to a single Voice? Not really. When part-combining does its job, there are no voices or staves yet. \partcombine rather takes two music expressions and decides to which voices the note events (and of course also all other events in the music expressions) are sent later on. \partcombineAutomatic and the other functions simply tell the part-combiner where to send the events. That being so, does it turn off a previous \partcombineApart, e.g.? Yes, that's correct. If you use \partcombineApart (which tells the part- combiner to send all events of the first music expression to voice one and the events of the second expression to the second voice, even if they could be combined to a chord), you need to use \partcombineAutomatic to return to the default part-combining mechanism. Cheers, Reinhold -- -- Reinhold Kainhofer, reinh...@kainhofer.com, http://reinhold.kainhofer.com/ * Financial Actuarial Math., Vienna Univ. of Technology, Austria * http://www.fam.tuwien.ac.at/, DVR: 0005886 * LilyPond, Music typesetting, http://www.lilypond.org ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/02/24 04:29:24, Colin Campbell Perhaps I should add something like: decide, but the results may need adjustment in some cases.? Yes that sounds like a better way of putting it. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/02/22 12:15:31, Reinhold wrote: http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono. On 2011/02/21 20:29:42, Colin Campbell wrote: I believe unisono is a Dutch usage, so I've changed it to unison, although it is hardwired into the names of functions like \partCombineUnisono. Unisono is the usual Italian term, as opposed to divisi. FWIW, unisono only appears in code, never in open text, per git grep 'unisono '; I feel that using the Italian term in this context would detract from the purpose of explaining the commands. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination strategy automatically determined. On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote: Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we could simply say Let the software decide which is the best option. I want to not use the word 'strategy'. Actually, it's not easy to describe the default (combine, if it is possible, but not for voice crossings or for different spanners or dynamics, or if the notes are further apart than an octave or so). Also, lilypond does not usually decide what's the best option, but rather the simplest. Perhaps I should add something like: decide, but the results may need adjustment in some cases.? http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
one correction.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/2004/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/2004/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode820
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:820: unison (@notation{a due})
parts are marked by default with the text
I think this is meant to be 'a deux' also there is an aigue accent on
the 'a'.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/2004/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/2004/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode820
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:820: unison (@notation{a due})
parts are marked by default with the text
On 2011/02/22 11:23:44, pkx166h wrote:
I think this is meant to be 'a deux' also there is an aigue accent on
the 'a'.
Nope, a due is the conventional Italian phrase for by both, just
like unisono is the term for unison.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono. On 2011/02/21 20:29:42, Colin Campbell wrote: I believe unisono is a Dutch usage, so I've changed it to unison, although it is hardwired into the names of functions like \partCombineUnisono. Unisono is the usual Italian term, as opposed to divisi. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination strategy automatically determined. On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote: Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we could simply say Let the software decide which is the best option. I want to not use the word 'strategy'. Actually, it's not easy to describe the default (combine, if it is possible, but not for voice crossings or for different spanners or dynamics, or if the notes are further apart than an octave or so). Also, lilypond does not usually decide what's the best option, but rather the simplest. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state
permanently.
If I may make a suggestion for this whole paragraph?
--snip--
In professional scores, voices are often kept apart for long periods -
even if one or two notes actually coincide and could easily be printed
as @emph{unisono}. Combining notes into a chord, or to print one voice
as solo is therefore not ideal as the @code{\partcombine} function
considers each note separately.
For this reason, the @code{\partcombine} function can be overriden with
the following commands:
--snip--
I have moved that final sentence below the list
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono.
Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not
just a mis-translation of foreign usage?
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a
chord.
There was much discussion on 'chord' vs 'not chord' unrelated to this,
but still enough to worry some. So is 'chord' the correct term here? I
have no preference but am just pre-empting discussion.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are
unisono.
@emph{unisono}
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination
strategy automatically determined.
Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we
could simply say
Let the software decide which is the best option. I want to not use
the word 'strategy'.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize
Now add the final sentence from above:
All commands ending in @code{...Once} apply only to the following note.
---
It is therefore implicit and unnecessary to state what the code that
doesn't end in 'once' does. So I have removed that sentence.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords
e'^chord e |
If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here
too.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c
If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine
\instrumentOne \instrumentTwo
If we do keep this @lilypond (see comment below) I'd like to see {}
after the new Staff for clarity.
\new Staff { \instrumentOne }
\new Staff { \instrumentTwo }
\new Staff { \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo }
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond
Maybe I have missed something but this looks a tad complicated for an
@lilypond and would be better served as a snippet instead. We don't
often use variables like this in @lilypond except when explicitly
discussing variables.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
revised patch uploaded.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state
permanently.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If I may make a suggestion for this whole paragraph?
--snip--
In professional scores, voices are often kept apart for long periods -
even if
one or two notes actually coincide and could easily be printed as
@emph{unisono}. Combining notes into a chord, or to print one voice
as solo is
therefore not ideal as the @code{\partcombine} function considers each
note
separately.
For this reason, the @code{\partcombine} function can be overriden
with the
following commands:
--snip--
I have moved that final sentence below the list
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode852
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:852: chord or unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Again do we @emph{} unisono? I assume this is a musical term and not
just a
mis-translation of foreign usage?
I believe unisono is a Dutch usage, so I've changed it to unison,
although it is hardwired into the names of functions like
\partCombineUnisono.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode856
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:856: Combine the notes to a
chord.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
There was much discussion on 'chord' vs 'not chord' unrelated to this,
but still
enough to worry some. So is 'chord' the correct term here? I have no
preference
but am just pre-empting discussion.
I think it's safe, given the names of the commands. Whether the
commands are correctly named may be another discussion!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode860
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:860: The two voices are
unisono.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
@emph{unisono}
As above.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode872
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:872: Use the combination
strategy automatically determined.
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Can we be more descriptive on what the 'automatic' strategy is? Or we
could
simply say
Let the software decide which is the best option. I want to not use
the word
'strategy'.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode874
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:874: @end itemize
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Now add the final sentence from above:
All commands ending in @code{...Once} apply only to the following
note.
---
It is therefore implicit and unnecessary to state what the code that
doesn't end
in 'once' does. So I have removed that sentence.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode880
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:880: \partcombineChords
e'^chord e |
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we do change the word 'chord' above then we need to change it here
too.
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode891
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:891: c2 c
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we're going to have bar checks then we need one on the last bar
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode897
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:897: \new Staff \partcombine
\instrumentOne \instrumentTwo
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
If we do keep this @lilypond (see comment below) I'd like to see {}
after the
new Staff for clarity.
\new Staff { \instrumentOne }
\new Staff { \instrumentTwo }
\new Staff { \partcombine \instrumentOne \instrumentTwo }
Done.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1003/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode899
Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:899: @end lilypond
On 2011/02/21 17:56:05, pkx166h wrote:
Maybe I have missed something but this looks a tad complicated for an
@lilypond
and would be better served as a snippet instead. We don't often use
variables
like this in @lilypond except when explicitly discussing variables.
It may be more confusing to write it without variables; \partcombine is
certainly easier to do *with* than without, and I believe the example is
nearly unreadable without variables. Other tastes are of course
different!
http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
On 2011/02/16 06:08:03, Keith wrote: Looks good as it is, better if you can add one markup that Reinhold missed in the example. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode873 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:873: from the left one of each pair of commands above. I had trouble understanding after the comma, but think the first part of the sentence says it all. AGree, Keith: I've trimmed it. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode882 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:882: \partcombineAutomatic c c | c^auto done, and thanks! http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
LGTM. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode846 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:846: change the state permanently. Hmm. 5 commas in 4 sentences. Just kidding, I can't see anything wrong with that paragraph. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: DOC: NR 1.5.2 Multiple voices - part combining (issue4188056)
Looks good as it is, better if you can add one markup that Reinhold missed in the example. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode873 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:873: from the left one of each pair of commands above. I had trouble understanding after the comma, but think the first part of the sentence says it all. http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/diff/1/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode882 Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely:882: \partcombineAutomatic c c | c^auto http://codereview.appspot.com/4188056/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
