Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
On the contrary, I think making mathematical sense serves a very
practical purpose: it is more consistent with the non-tuplet method
of scaling duration and it is (at least for me) easier to remember.
Mhmm.
In LilyPond, if I want to print a half note but I only want it to
use the duration of a quarter note, I use c2*1/2. [...]
Well, this is not the same as having a tuplet... And I fully agree
that this is the right notation here.
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
which should be the same as
\tuplet 3 {...}
And of course it would be nice to make this particular case identical
to
\triplet {...}
but I thought that this thread was about _reducing_ the number of
redundant constructs.
Well, I don't consider this a real redundancy. Compare this to, say,
the unit `Hertz' (Hz) which is `redundant' because it's just `per
second' (s ^ -1). In spite of this, nobody would use Gs^-1 instead of
GHz.
A tuplet notation is really not comparable to making a note longer or
shorter.
I think that having two ways to do tuplets (that are exactly the
same except for taking the reciprocal of the fraction) is a recipe
for confusion.
I disagree. I regularly confuse \times with \time -- it's really a
bad idea IMHO to have two such important commands with almost
identical names.
My personal favour would be the introduction of `\tuplet' as described
above.
By the way, if you really want to use 3/2 instead of 2/3, I'm sure it's
possible to whip up a scheme function.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
/Mats
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lilypond API
Luc,
When I did this for Context I scanned the manual and all the regression test
cases, it took me a while to do it. I'm using Context, but I'd be
interested in trying Notepad++ also as a backup. Can you maybe upload the
configuration files for Notepad/lilypond at some point for others to use?
Rick
Here is what I installed for myself with your ConText file of LilyPond
expressions.
For the auto-completing you need a file with all the keywords - sorted and
without comments - in C:\programme...\
...\Notepad++\plugins\APIs\LilyPond.api. If needed I can deliver that.
If somebody is interested in executing (running) command to produce and
view LilyPond scores under Notepad++ I can send the necessary information.
For hilighting: In userDefineLang.xml (in Documents and
settings\...\Notepad++\) you must add the following (alternatively you also
can/must enter the different keywords in the interactive dialog when
creating the new user language)
UserLang name=LilyPond ext=ly
Settings
Global caseIgnored=no /
TreatAsSymbol comment=no commentLine=no /
Prefix words1=no words2=no words3=no words4=no /
/Settings
KeywordLists
Keywords name=Delimiters00/Keywords
Keywords name=Folder+lt; lt;lt; { (/Keywords
Keywords name=Folder-gt; gt;gt; } )/Keywords
Keywords name=Operatorsapos; * ./Keywords
Keywords name=Comment1%{ 2%} 0%/Keywords
Keywords
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Since it is a change that can be accomodated with convert-ly, we wouldn't even
need a major version bump for it.
This should be a rather trivial change, so once we have consensus on the list
I would welcome a patch. It should include
- convert-ly and
- changes for all .ly's
- updates of the manual.
which should be the same as
\tuplet 3 {...}
And of course it would be nice to make this particular case identical
to
\triplet {...}
the latter can be achieved with a music function.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
Well, in that case just stay with \times.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
On Tue 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: This should be a rather trivial change, so once we have consensus on the list I consent. I don't mind the current syntax, but \tuplet is definitely more clear than \times. Eyolf -- It is Mr. Mellon's credo that $200,000,000 can do no wrong. Our offense consists in doubting it. -- Justice Robert H. Jackson ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
could you maile me the example then? On Dec 19, 2006, at 2:49 AM, David Rogers wrote: Ezequiel Sierra wrote: nop it dosent work :( On Dec 18, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Eduardo Vieira wrote: associatedVoice Yes, it does work. I tried Eduardo's example myself. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Is it relevant that ':' and '/' actually both mean divide?
Paul Scott
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Paul Scott wrote: Is it relevant that ':' and '/' actually both mean divide? In music, an expression like 3:2 has a specific, universally-agreed-upon meaning. Therefore, IMO, a broader mathematical meaning is not really important in this context. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
Ezequiel Sierra wrote: could you maile me the example then? Sorry, but I think I misunderstood your other message. I don't know if associatedVoice works, or even how it works. I only know that Eduardo's example (which he already sent) works fine, when you correct some missing hyphens and some rhythm mistakes in the lyrics. I know, because I made it work in only a few minutes - you can too. (I don't even speak Spanish.) Take Eduardo's advice very literally. He knows more than both of us put together. Follow his instructions closely, and use his example. If yours is almost the same, that is not enough. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first meassure what im trying to do is to place the lyrics in all five notes On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:15 PM, David Rogers wrote: Ezequiel Sierra wrote: could you maile me the example then? Sorry, but I think I misunderstood your other message. I don't know if associatedVoice works, or even how it works. I only know that Eduardo's example (which he already sent) works fine, when you correct some missing hyphens and some rhythm mistakes in the lyrics. I know, because I made it work in only a few minutes - you can too. (I don't even speak Spanish.) Take Eduardo's advice very literally. He knows more than both of us put together. Follow his instructions closely, and use his example. If yours is almost the same, that is not enough. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
look in the upper voice the bes8 will only have the word el from siem pre el and pre should go in the second f on the lower get it? On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote: Ezequiel Sierra wrote: David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first meassure what im trying to do is to place the lyrics in all five notes I don't understand. Do you mean the music to Siem -- pre el la -- bio ...? There, in the upper stave, the upper voice is bes'4. bes8 bes bes and the lower voice is f4 f g g. Are you supposed to sing the lyrics to the upper or the lower voice? I can't see how you would sing both rhythms. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
Ezequiel Sierra wrote: look in the upper voice the bes8 will only have the word el from siem pre el and pre should go in the second f on the lower get it? Yes, now I get it exactly. It doesn't work this way. The alto needs its own (new, separate) line of lyrics, if you want it different from the soprano. One line of lyrics = one singer. However, this whole plan is not necessary - the sopranos sing one rhythm, the altos sing a different rhythm, but the words are the same. There is no reason to try to give one syllable to the sopranos and the other to the altos. It is perfectly clear to the singers what they have to do, in Eduardo's example. (except some hyphens are missing and some rhythms are wrong.) On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Mats Bengtsson wrote: Ezequiel Sierra wrote: David in the second system there are 5 notes in ther first meassure what im trying to do is to place the lyrics in all five notes I don't understand. Do you mean the music to Siem -- pre el la -- bio ...? There, in the upper stave, the upper voice is bes'4. bes8 bes bes and the lower voice is f4 f g g. Are you supposed to sing the lyrics to the upper or the lower voice? I can't see how you would sing both rhythms. /Mats ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
Ezequiel Sierra wrote: The thing is that the music is a hymn so i cant make different lines of lyrics for different voices But you don't need to - that's my whole point. Forget the whole idea of making a syllable line up with the alto note. The singers don't care, and it doesn't matter. Just let the words line up with the soprano notes, and it's good enough. This is how hymns and strophic songs are done - otherwise, it's much too complicated. David ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Well, in that case just stay with \times. I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \times and replace it by \tuplet (which I think is a good idea). Just wanted to see if anybody had any bright idea on a command name that's accurate also in this special case. Han-Wen says that it's no problem to make \tuplet accept both X/Y and Y:X, so I withdraw the above remark. Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Since it is a change that can be accomodated with convert-ly, we wouldn't
even need a major version bump for it.
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the parser
machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a proper
music function, e.g. as
\tuplet 2 3 {...}
This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
(Hm, my suggestion is not really in line with this discussion; I can agree
that \tuplet 2 3 would be easier to confuse with 3:2 than \tuplet 2/3 is).
--
Erik
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Fwd: Constructive Criticism and a Question
-- Forwarded message --
From: Frédéric Chiasson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 déc. 2006 17:45
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, I prefer to keep the punctuation : and / to avoid confusion.
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Erik Sandberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] :
On Tuesday 19 December 2006 10:57, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG escreveu:
I suppose you could add the command \times 3:2 {a b c} to do exactly
the same as \times 2/3 {a b c} [...]
If at all, then
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
with
\time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Since it is a change that can be accomodated with convert-ly, we
wouldn't
even need a major version bump for it.
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the parser
machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
proper
music function, e.g. as
\tuplet 2 3 {...}
This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
(Hm, my suggestion is not really in line with this discussion; I can agree
that \tuplet 2 3 would be easier to confuse with 3:2 than \tuplet 2/3
is).
--
Erik
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Horizontal spacing
Hello, how can I change the horizontal spacing of a Staff or Voice in a way it doesn't modify other staffs? I mean overriding Score.SeparationItem #'padding will not come good. I just want to enlarge the space somewhere and reduce some other place. I tried s16 and setting time back with \set Staff.measurePosition = #(ly:make-moment 1 8) but that produced strange errors. I'm using 2.8.6 and 2.10.2 (but 2.10.2 has a critical regression in grace formatting, so 2.8.6 solution would be preferable) Bert ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Lyrics in poly
Citando David Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ezequiel Sierra wrote:
The thing is that the music is a hymn so i cant make different lines
of lyrics for different voices
Ezequiel, it's hard to understand what you really want. I sent the file
001-modif.ly and it doesn't seem you are trying to develop a progress from
there. You don't don't tell us how you tryed with set associatedVoice, this
way is hard to feel like helping you.
Anyway, attached is the file 001-modif2.ly, which uses set associatedVoice.
There are other problems with the other verses, but I'll let you figure out the
solution, as well as apply set associatedVoice to the other verses.
Eduardo.
P.S. Users like to once in a while hear a thank you, to. ;)
___
Neste Fim de Ano, interurbano para cidades próximas ou distantes é com o 21.
A Embratel tem tarifas muito baratas de presente para você ligar para quem
você gosta e economizar. Faz um 21 e aproveite.
%**
\version 2.10.2
%**
numeroHimno = 1
tituloHimno = ¡Santo! ¡Santo! ¡Santo!
%
\paper {
oddHeaderMarkup = \markup { \bold \large \numeroHimno }
print-page-number = ##f
between-system-space = 0.0\cm
head-separation = 0.0\cm
}
%
%
\header {
title = \tituloHimno
copyright = Iglesia Bautista de Jesucristo
tagline =
meter = \markup { (CAPO I) }
}
%
%
acordes= \chordmode {
ees2 c2:m bes2:7 ees2 aes4 d4:dim7/+bes aes4 bes4:9 ees1
bes2/+d ees4 g4:m/+d c4:m f4:/+c bes4 ees4 bes2/+f f4:7 bes4 bes1
ees2 c2:m bes2:7 ees2 aes4 d4:dim7/+bes aes4 bes4:9 ees1
c4:m aes4 ees4 ees4:7 aes2 ees4 ees4:7 aes4 f4:m/+aes bes4:7 ees ees1
}
%
#(define (parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion context)
(markup #:line (( (ignatzek-chord-names in-pitches bass inversion context)
%
acordesConCapo= \chordmode {
\set chordNameFunction = #parenthesis-ignatzek-chord-names
\transpose ees d {
ees2 c2:m bes2:7 ees2 aes4 d4:dim7/+bes aes4 bes4:9 ees1
bes2/+d ees4 g4:m/+d c4:m f4:/+c bes4 ees4 bes2/+f f4:7 bes4 bes1
ees2 c2:m bes2:7 ees2 aes4 d4:dim7/+bes aes4 bes4:9 ees1
c4:m aes4 ees4 ees4:7 aes2 ees4 ees4:7 aes4 f4:m/+aes bes4:7 ees4 ees1
}
}
%
%
tope = \relative c' {
\key ees \major
\time 4/4
\new Voice = melodia {
bes ees4 bes ees ees g ees g
\context Voice = melodia { \voiceOne bes'2 ees, bes'4 d bes' } \new Voice { \voiceTwo d ( f ) } \oneVoice
c c' d c' ees c' f c'
g bes2 ees g2 \break
\context Voice = melodia { \voiceOne bes'4. bes8 bes g4 bes g } \context Voice = alto { \voiceTwo f4 f4 } \oneVoice
{ \voiceOne ees'2 f, d'4 g bes } \new Voice { \voiceTwo d ( f ) } \oneVoice
{ \voiceOne f d bes' ees c'4. d bes'8} \new Voice { \voiceTwo f4 } \oneVoice
d bes'1 \break
bes ees4 bes ees ees g ees g
\context Voice = melodia { \voiceOne bes'2 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo d,4 ( f ) } \oneVoice ees bes'4 d bes'
\context Voice = melodia { \voiceOne c'4. c8 } \new Voice { \voiceTwo c,4 d} \oneVoice c' ees,4 c f,
g bes2 ees bes'2 \break
ees ees'4 ees ees' ees bes' ees bes'
ees c'2 ees g4 des g
c aes' c f d! f4. ees8
ees ees1
}
}
%
%
versoUno = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = 1.
¡San -- to! ¡San -- to! ¡San -- to! Se -- ñor om -- ni -- po -- ten -- \set associatedVoice = alto te,
Siem -- \set associatedVoice = melodia pre el la -- bio mà -- o lo -- o -- res Te da -- rá.
¡San -- to! ¡San -- to! ¡San -- to! Te a -- do -- ro re -- ve -- ren -- te,
Dios en tres per -- so -- nas, ben -- di -- ta Tri -- ni -- dad.
}
versoDos = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = 2.
¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San2 -- to!4 en nu -- me -- ro -- so co -- ro,
San -- tos es -- co -- gi -- dos Te a -- do -- ran sin ce -- sar1
De a -- le -- grÃa -- a lle -- nos y sus co -- ro -- nas de o2 -- ro
Rin4 -- den an te el tro2 -- no4 y el cris -- ta -- li -- no mar.1
}
versoTres = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = 3.
¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San2 -- to!4 la in -- men -- sa mu -- che -- dum2 -- bre
De án1 -- ge - les que cum -- plen tu san -- ta vo -- lun -- tad,1
An4 -- te Ti se pos -- tra, ba -- ña - da de tu lum2 -- bre,
An4 -- te Ti que has si2 -- do,4 que e -- res y se -- rás.1
}
versoCuatro = \lyricmode {
\set stanza = 4.
¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San4 -- to!4 ¡San2 -- to!4 por más que es
newbie questions
hello list, i'm new to lilypond and this is my first message to the list. first of all, a big thank you to all the developers and contributors for this great software. i've been reading the documentation and i've been able to begin typesetting a simple piano piece in traditional notation. there are many things that i still don't know how to do, and others that i copy from the manual but i still don't understand very well. now i have three questions regarding a short fragment i've written, i hope it's OK to attach the code and a small png file (11 Kb): 1) in measure number 4 of the score, the beam in the 3rd quarter note of the right hand is slightly slanted *upwards*, not downwards as it should be; 2) from measure 4 to 5, in the right hand a note with an accidental is tied across the line break, the accidental in the following note (beginning m. 5) collides with the tie; 3) at the end of m. 6 there's again a note tied to the following measure across the line break, but since there's a clef change in the left hand, the tie ends before the line. my question are: how can i correct those issues? are they the usual behavior, what have i done wrong? i'm using lilypond 2.8.8 on gentoo linux. best, lj test.ly Description: Binary data allemande.png Description: PNG image ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Might be an idea, but why should we keep two functions making the same
function?
Does it cost that much on functionality to use two differents syntax in the
same function?
Frédéric
2006/12/19, Han-Wen Nienhuys [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
Erik Sandberg mandolaerik at gmail.com writes:
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
parser
machinery. I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
proper
music function, e.g. as
\tuplet 2 3 {...}
This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
(Hm, my suggestion is not really in line with this discussion; I can
agree
that \tuplet 2 3 would be easier to confuse with 3:2 than \tuplet 2/3
is).
I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion started
with my
discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding syntax
is not
really in that direction.
That being said, \tuplet 2 3 {...} is rather confusing. I can live with
Another option:
- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
- replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3) ; this can be implemented with
a standard music function
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
I think these changes sound scary, it is an additional hack in the
parser machinery.
Why do you think so? Sometimes syntactic sugar is essential to make
certain situations more comprehensible. Just think of TeX's `=' mark
in things like
\count\foo=1
which can be omitted.
I think it would be cleaner if \times could be changed to a
proper music function, e.g. as
\tuplet 2 3 {...}
This would remove rules from the parser instead of adding them.
You are thinking too mathematically IMHO.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
I don't mind changing \times to \tuplet, and agree that the confusion
with \time is a bad thing. We could make \tuplet accept 3:2 2/3 and 3.
Opinion --
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the bare
argument 3: \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of course, I'm a
dodo, but I predict that Mats Erik several others would wind up
spending a lot of time explaining what \times 7 (or \tuplet 7) means.
(2) \times 2/3 and \tuplet 3:2 don't mean the same thing:
\times 2/3 {c8 d e d e f}
makes sense, but I don't think that
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
does. The least messy option would be the status quo. The keyword
\times is perfectly clear. You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword
\tuplet with the syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes}, but then
when the \tuplet expression is parsed, checks should be performed that
would accept
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e}
and probably accept
\tuplet 3:2 {g4 b8}
but would reject
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
You would be opening up a big can of worms by adding a *genuine*
\tuplet construct.
-- Tom
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Jonathan Henkelman escreveu:
I think Eriks point is actually well founded. The discussion started with my
discussion of trying to trim down the grammer complexity. Adding syntax is not
really in that direction.
Another option:
- add \tuplet 3:2 {.. }
- replace \times 2/3 by \times #'(2 . 3) ; this can be implemented with
a standard music function
Oh God no. It took me a year to get used to #'(2 . 3) -- I kept on
trying '#( and #( and #'(2.3)... every time I gave up after ten minutes
and found an example from the documentation to copy.
I'm with Werner here -- I don't see grammar complexity as a problem. I
enthusiastically support
\tuplet 3:2 { }
\tuplet 2/3 { }
meaning the same thing. I'm not convinced that
\triplet { }
is worth having, though. The advantage of \triplet{} over \tuplet X:/Y
isn't clear to me.
As long as we only introduce one of them (probably 3:2) in the tutorial,
I don't see it being a problem for new users.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
\tuplet 3:2 {...}
One minor detail is that the name isn't exactly appropriate when you
do
\set tupletSpannerDuration = #(ly:make-moment 1 4)
\times 2/3 {c8 d e f e d e f g f e d }
I thought the proposal was to completely get rid of \times and replace it
by \tuplet (which I think is a good idea). Just wanted to see if anybody
had any bright idea on a command name that's accurate also in this
special case.
I have a bright idea: it's a special case. New users will be encouraged
to write
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e} \tuplet 3:2 { f e d} \tuplet 3:2 {e f g} \tuplet
3:2 { f e d}
(that's what I do all the time anyway)
Advanced users who read the program reference to discover the
tupletSpannerduration can deal with the extra complexity. :)
... hmm, what about allowing
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e} \tuplet { f e d}
i.e. as well as remembering the duration 8, remember the value of \tuplet.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Constructive Criticism and a Question
(1) If you reduce this to a single keyword, then don't allow the
bare argument 3: \times 3 looks like \times 3/1 to me; so of
course, I'm a dodo, but I predict that Mats Erik several others
would wind up spending a lot of time explaining what \times 7 (or
\tuplet 7) means.
Indeed, `\times 3' is problematic, but `\tuplet 3' sounds clear to me.
Additionally, I suggest that `\tuplet 3' prints the `3' above the
group, while `\tuplet 3:2' prints `3:2' (which some composers prefer).
You *could* keep \times and *add* the keyword \tuplet with the
syntax \tuplet m:n {sequence-of-notes},
Actually, I would prefer this too.
but then when the \tuplet expression is parsed, checks should be
performed that would accept
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e}
and probably accept
\tuplet 3:2 {g4 b8}
but would reject
\tuplet 3:2 {c8 d e d e f}
Why that?
You would be opening up a big can of worms by adding a *genuine*
\tuplet construct.
Which one? I can't see a problem here. Particularly, it's quite
annoying to write
\tuplet 3 { c8 c c } \tuplet 3 { c c c } ...
over and over again for longer sequences consisting of triplets.
Werner
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
