Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On 2022-03-19 5:46 pm, Thomas Morley wrote:
Am So., 20. März 2022 um 00:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
:
Here would be a possible refactoring:
\version "2.22.0"
partial =
#(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
(_i "Make a partial measure.")
(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
(dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
(make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (context-spec-music
(make-music 'PartialSet
'origin (*location*)
'duration dur)
'Timing)
mus
\fixed c' {
\time 3/4
\partial { g8 a4 }
| g2. \bar "||"
\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
| a2. \bar "||"
\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
| g2. \bar "|."
}
A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
power
of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support both
duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
following does seem to work:
\version "2.22.0"
#(define (duration-or-music? arg)
(or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))
partial =
#(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
(_i "Make a partial measure.")
(if (ly:duration? arg)
(context-spec-music
(make-music 'PartialSet
'origin (*location*)
'duration arg)
'Timing)
(let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
(dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
(make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements
(list (context-spec-music
(make-music 'PartialSet
'origin (*location*)
'duration dur)
'Timing)
arg)
\fixed c' {
\time 3/4
\partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
| g2. \bar "||"
\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
| a2. \bar "||"
\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
| g2. \bar "|."
}
-- Aaron Hill
Hi Aaron,
I really like it! Always wondered why we need to specify a duration,
if it can be taken from the music.
I'd suggest to propose it on devel. Preferable the second coding,
because we could nicely deprecate the old syntax for some versions.
*facepalm* I thought I was sending to devel. Well, folks on user might
want to chime in too.
-- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Hi Aaron;
I **LIKE** it.
Thanks,
Ken Wolcott
On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 5:54 PM Aaron Hill wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-19 5:46 pm, Thomas Morley wrote:
> > Am So., 20. März 2022 um 00:02 Uhr schrieb Aaron Hill
> > :
> >>
> >> Here would be a possible refactoring:
> >>
> >>
> >> \version "2.22.0"
> >>
> >> partial =
> >> #(define-music-function (mus) (ly:music?)
> >>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
> >>(let* ((mom (ly:music-length mus))
> >> (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
> >> (make-music 'SequentialMusic
> >>'elements
> >>(list (context-spec-music
> >>(make-music 'PartialSet
> >>'origin (*location*)
> >>'duration dur)
> >>'Timing)
> >> mus
> >>
> >>
> >> \fixed c' {
> >>\time 3/4
> >>\partial { g8 a4 }
> >>| g2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
> >>| a2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
> >>| g2. \bar "|."
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> >> power
> >> of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support both
> >> duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
> >> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
> >> following does seem to work:
> >>
> >>
> >> \version "2.22.0"
> >>
> >> #(define (duration-or-music? arg)
> >>(or (ly:duration? arg) (ly:music? arg)))
> >>
> >> partial =
> >> #(define-music-function (arg) (duration-or-music?)
> >>(_i "Make a partial measure.")
> >>(if (ly:duration? arg)
> >> (context-spec-music
> >>(make-music 'PartialSet
> >>'origin (*location*)
> >>'duration arg)
> >>'Timing)
> >> (let* ((mom (ly:music-length arg))
> >> (dur (make-duration-of-length mom)))
> >>(make-music 'SequentialMusic
> >> 'elements
> >> (list (context-spec-music
> >> (make-music 'PartialSet
> >> 'origin (*location*)
> >> 'duration dur)
> >> 'Timing)
> >>arg)
> >>
> >>
> >> \fixed c' {
> >>\time 3/4
> >>\partial 4. g8 a4 %% Original syntax works.
> >>| g2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial { \grace { g16 } a8 b }
> >>| a2. \bar "||"
> >>\partial \tuplet 3/2 { g8 fis }
> >>| g2. \bar "|."
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -- Aaron Hill
> >
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> > I really like it! Always wondered why we need to specify a duration,
> > if it can be taken from the music.
> > I'd suggest to propose it on devel. Preferable the second coding,
> > because we could nicely deprecate the old syntax for some versions.
>
> *facepalm* I thought I was sending to devel. Well, folks on user might
> want to chime in too.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
>
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill wrote:
...
>>> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited power
>>> of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support both
>>> duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
>>> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but the
>>> following does seem to work:
...
I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out different.
\score {
\fixed c' {
\partial 4. 4.
}
}
\score {
\fixed c' {
\partial c4. c4.
}
}
—
Dan
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill wrote:
...
A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
power
of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support
both
duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but
the
following does seem to work:
...
I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
different.
\score {
\fixed c' {
\partial 4. 4.
}
}
\score {
\fixed c' {
\partial c4. c4.
}
}
Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could be
issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would inform the
user of the impending breaking change while still allowing existing code
to compile. When it is convenient, a future release would only support
music as the argument.
-- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
> limited power of regular expressions. As such, \partial might
> need to support both duration and music arguments. Initially I
> thought this might not be possible, given that a naked duration
> can be treated as music; but the following does seem to work:
>>
>> ...
>> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
>> different.
>> \score {
>> \fixed c' {
>> \partial 4. 4.
>> }
>> }
>> \score {
>> \fixed c' {
>> \partial c4. c4.
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could
> be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would
> inform the user of the impending breaking change while still
> allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a future
> release would only support music as the argument.
What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
Werner
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
What if you rotate them instead?
Rename the current \partial \partialDuration,
convert.ly now is just s/partial/partialDuration/
and \partial always takes music from now on
It's the same as Werner said, but keeps the good name
L
On Sun, 20 Mar 2022, 08:24 Werner LEMBERG, wrote:
>
> > A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
> > limited power of regular expressions. As such, \partial might
> > need to support both duration and music arguments. Initially I
> > thought this might not be possible, given that a naked duration
> > can be treated as music; but the following does seem to work:
> >>
> >> ...
> >> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> >> different.
> >> \score {
> >> \fixed c' {
> >> \partial 4. 4.
> >> }
> >> }
> >> \score {
> >> \fixed c' {
> >> \partial c4. c4.
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> > compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could
> > be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would
> > inform the user of the impending breaking change while still
> > allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a future
> > release would only support music as the argument.
>
> What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
>
>
> Werner
>
>
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 12:44 AM wrote: > > Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:23:30 + (UTC) > From: Werner LEMBERG > [...] > > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards > > compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could > > be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would > > inform the user of the impending breaking change while still > > allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a future > > release would only support music as the argument. > > What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial` > into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`. > > > Werner ... Or you could use the brand new command \upbeat when music follows, keep \partial, and you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. --- Christopher Heckman
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial` into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`. Werner ... Or you could use the brand new command \upbeat when music follows, keep \partial, and you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. This makes a lot of sense IMHO since, linguistically, it's not the music that becomes "partial": it's the measure. The music becomes an upbeat (at least in most applications of \partial). Lukas
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On 2022-03-20 1:13 am, Leo Correia de Verdier wrote: Entirely replacing the actual syntax would not be desirable in my opinion. Consider the case when it is used in a “global” part/variable in an orchestral score that usually contains rehearsal marks, tempo, key and time signature changes and such. As I understand it having \partial to accept only music as argument would have to move to each part, which would introduce unnecessary typing and disrupt the logic of the structure. Sure it can be worked around, but I would see it as a step backwards. Or have I misunderstood? All of those things *are* music, as far as LilyPond is concerned. It is just that commands like \tempo have no duration, so the following is nonsensical since the music has zero length: \partial \tempo 4 = 90 Your "global" variable likely uses spacer rests which are providing the length information, so the change to \partial usage ultimately looks like this: \partial 4 s4 => \partial s4 This removes the otherwise redundant specification of the duration. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On 2022-03-20 1:56 am, Lukas-Fabian Moser wrote: What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial` into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`. Werner ... Or you could use the brand new command \upbeat when music follows, keep \partial, and you don't have to worry about backwards compatibility. This makes a lot of sense IMHO since, linguistically, it's not the music that becomes "partial": it's the measure. The music becomes an upbeat (at least in most applications of \partial). But as you say "most applications". Partial or incomplete measures are not always anacruses. Hymns nearly always cut the final measure short so it logically joins with the partial measure at the start of the tune. You might also find incomplete measures in volta sections when the starting repeat mark is mid-measure. To me, upbeat (opposite the term downbeat) describes articulation/emphasis more than it does timing. \anacrusis or \pickup are better options though still too strongly linked to the beginning of a piece. I think the existing \partial is the right word for the job. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
But as you say "most applications". Partial or incomplete measures
are not always anacruses. Hymns nearly always cut the final measure
short so it logically joins with the partial measure at the start of
the tune. You might also find incomplete measures in volta sections
when the starting repeat mark is mid-measure.
Yes, of course you're right, but as far as I can see, I do not need to
use \partial for these applications:
\relative {
\repeat volta 2 {
\partial 4
c'4
e e f f
g4 e8 f g4
}
a8 f
g4 f8 e d4 e
c2. \bar "|."
}
To me, upbeat (opposite the term downbeat) describes
articulation/emphasis more than it does timing. \anacrusis or \pickup
are better options though still too strongly linked to the beginning
of a piece.
That's a point where my English music terminology skills a lacking: In
German, we say "Auftakt" which most often happens at the beginning of a
piece (a partial measure etc.), but may also refer to actual music in
mid-piece: In
\relative {
\partial 8
g8
c4 c c r8 d
e4 e e
}
the piece starts with an "Auftakt", but there's also a (musical)
"Auftakt" to bar 2. (Common in orchestra rehearsals: "Let's start in bar
X 'mit Auftakt'".)
I do not know what the precise meanings of the English terms
upbeat/pickup/anacrusis actually are.
Lukas
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Aaron Hill writes:
> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
>> On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill wrote:
>> ...
> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the
> limited power
> of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support
> both
> duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music;
> but the
> following does seem to work:
>> ...
>> I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
>> different.
>> \score {
>> \fixed c' {
>> \partial 4. 4.
>> }
>> }
>> \score {
>> \fixed c' {
>> \partial c4. c4.
>> }
>> }
>>
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time.
I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and
proper expression when writing a separate timing track.
> A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax;
> this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while
> still allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a
> future release would only support music as the argument.
4. _is_ valid music.
--
David Kastrup
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On 2022-03-20 3:17 am, David Kastrup wrote: Aaron Hill writes: Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards compatibility would only need to exist for a time. I strongly disagree since \partial with a duration is the natural and proper expression when writing a separate timing track. Natural, I can see. Proper... I would need more information backing that claim. Certainly if there is a technical basis, I would be eager to review it. If sound, then I could retract my proposal and answer the email subject with "no". In my timing/global/structure variables, expressions like \partial 4 s4 are common. Certainly \partial 4 would be most succinct, but it creates no actual duration in sequential music. Naturally, the spacer rest is used so later commands occur when I need them. My proposal leads to \partial s4 as a reasonable construct that avoids redundancy. (See below regarding NullVoice.) A warning could be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would inform the user of the impending breaking change while still allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a future release would only support music as the argument. 4. _is_ valid music. Yes, and it works with the updated \partial function. The only side effect is that it might produce a visible note (of unspecified pitch), because that is what 4. as music means. If used in a NullVoice context, it should work the same as s4. which means we are back to the original syntax. The key difference is that \partial 4. would now have musical length. -- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
I do not really like the idea that much to be honest. Of course it would be
cool if we just have to specify the music and no duration, but in the end
\partial is not really a command about the music, but about the measure
structure. Binding it to some music would be a bit like having \time take some
music, even though it does not need it.
This means that filling music into a structure becomes much weirder, requiring
the use of artificial << ... >> statements to parallelize things. E.g. compare
these two statements:
{
\time 6/8 \partial 4.
\repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
}
\new Staff {
\time 6/8
<<
\partial s4.
\repeat unfold 3 { c'8 e' g' }
>>
}
Clearly the second way is absolutely not beautiful, readable or intuitive.
Additionally \partial will not start a new measure, which leads to potentially
confusing behaviour.
One the other hand the benefit of this functionality is so minimal that I do
not think it is worth it. Instead I’d say doing something as Werner proposed
and have a new function with a self-explanatory name like \upbeat music for
this would surely be preferable.
Also from a standpoint of efficiency: This would force us to put each partial
measure into sequential music, which means writings lots of braces, and at
least I personally find writing braces less efficient than writing numbers.
Cheers,
Valentin
Am Sonntag, 20. März 2022, 05:35:46 CET schrieb Aaron Hill:
> On 2022-03-19 7:53 pm, Dan Eble wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 2022, at 20:53, Aaron Hill wrote:
> > ...
> >
> A convert-ly rule would probably not be possible given the limited
> power
> of regular expressions. As such, \partial might need to support
> both
> duration and music arguments. Initially I thought this might not be
> possible, given that a naked duration can be treated as music; but
> the
> >
> following does seem to work:
> > ...
> >
> > I wouldn't want to have to explain to users why these turn out
> > different.
> >
> > \score {
> >
> > \fixed c' {
> >
> > \partial 4. 4.
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > \score {
> >
> > \fixed c' {
> >
> > \partial c4. c4.
> >
> > }
> >
> > }
>
> Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could be
> issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would inform the
> user of the impending breaking change while still allowing existing code
> to compile. When it is convenient, a future release would only support
> music as the argument.
>
>
> -- Aaron Hill
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
What if instead of `\upbeat` (which is weirdly named when used in the end-of-music/phrase/hymn/passage scenario) this new thing is just called `\partialMusic`? It's backward compatible, does something easy to use in some simple scenarios, leaves everything else in place for more refined use cases, and it's not weird either end of the music L
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Entirely replacing the actual syntax would not be desirable in my opinion. Consider the case when it is used in a “global” part/variable in an orchestral score that usually contains rehearsal marks, tempo, key and time signature changes and such. As I understand it having \partial to accept only music as argument would have to move to each part, which would introduce unnecessary typing and disrupt the logic of the structure. Sure it can be worked around, but I would see it as a step backwards. Or have I misunderstood? > 20 mars 2022 kl. 05:36 skrev Aaron Hill : > > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards compatibility > would only need to exist for a time. A warning could be issued whenever a > user applies the older syntax; this would inform the user of the impending > breaking change while still allowing existing code to compile. When it is > convenient, a future release would only support music as the argument. > > > -- Aaron Hill
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Le 20/03/2022 à 10:01, Aaron Hill a écrit :
All of those things *are* music, as far as LilyPond is concerned. It
is just that commands like \tempo have no duration, so the following
is nonsensical since the music has zero length:
\partial \tempo 4 = 90
Your "global" variable likely uses spacer rests which are providing
the length information, so the change to \partial usage ultimately
looks like this:
\partial 4 s4 => \partial s4
This removes the otherwise redundant specification of the duration.
Took me a while to realize that << \partial { s4 } { ... } >> would
work. Also, what about injecting \partial into music via \pushToTag, the
edition engraver or similar?
Generally speaking, \partial is so frequently used that I am decidedly
wary of breaking it. Like Lukas, I am not seeing clearly on the English
terminology of "partial", "anacrusis", "upbeat" and "pickup", but it
seems to me that the choice is broad enough to allow the introduction of
a separate command. I don't know if I like it. It will be more to learn
for the same thing, but it might be more convenient for cases where you
need \partial 1*5/16 and such.
Jean
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
> On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial` > into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`. Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as \pickup notes.
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 1:26 AM Christopher Heckman
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2022 at 12:44 AM wrote:
> >
> > Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 07:23:30 + (UTC)
> > From: Werner LEMBERG
> > [...]
> > > Fair point, though the intention here would be that backwards
> > > compatibility would only need to exist for a time. A warning could
> > > be issued whenever a user applies the older syntax; this would
> > > inform the user of the impending breaking change while still
> > > allowing existing code to compile. When it is convenient, a future
> > > release would only support music as the argument.
> >
> > What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial`
> > into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`.
> >
> >
> > Werner
>
> ... Or you could use the brand new command \upbeat when music follows,
> keep \partial, and you don't have to worry about backwards
> compatibility.
This also seems to be a lot of trouble, because it seems like you
could define a one-line scheme music function and put it in your .ly
file. Something like this ought to work. (I might not have the syntax
100% correct.)
partialMusic =
#(define-music-function (parser location music) (ly:music?)
(let * (musicDur (ly:music-property music 'duration))
(#{ \partial $musicDur $music #})
))
--- Christopher Heckman
Re: Should \partial accept music instead of duration?
Tim's Bitstream writes: >> On Mar 20, 2022, at 2:24 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: >> >> What about providing a new command `\upbeat` and moving `\partial` >> into oblivion? Compare this to `\tuplet` vs. `\times`. > > Perhaps this is an American jazzism, but we would refer to those as > \pickup notes. \pickup has a reasonable ring to it, fitting it in a reasonable subset of applications for \partial . The problem I have is figuring out its role, though. With \times/\tuplet we clearly phased out \times for \tuplet consistently in the documentation. I am not really on-board with the same regarding \partial/\pickup : the overlap in semantics is different in character. -- David Kastrup
