Re: position of dots

2012-01-07 Thread Werner LEMBERG 

>> This looks like a plain bug to me which has been hidden up to now.
>
> The dot-note collision is probably a bug that can probably be fixed.
>
> There can also be dot-dot collisions, though, if we move that engraver
> and have dots line-up individually for each voice.
>
> When chords mesh,
>   << 4. \\ g'4.>>
> LilyPond currently places the dot on the g' higher than she would if
> the other dots weren't there.  If the dots are set independently for
> each voice, we would need to teach LilyPond how to handle this case.

David's idea of having the dot engraver on both the Voice and Staff
level is really attractive. :-)


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: The problem with midi command delay in 2.14.2

2012-01-07 Thread Michael Pozhidaev 
Hello, Keith!

> I don't know any better way to enter dynamics.  I use
>   \midi { context {\Voice \remove "Dynamic_performer" }}
> so that the dynamics errors don't bother me.
>
> We have it listed as a bug, that first appeared in 2.14, but did not seem
> serious enough (compared with the other MIDI bugs) to stop releasing
> 2.14.

Yes, it's almost sad. Although I don't know is it really convenient way
to write additional separate dynamics marks. maybe it is not so bad idea
to have one more entire file for midi only, where dynamics are written among
all notes.

Thanks for information!

-- 
Michael Pozhidaev. Tomsk, Russia.
Russian info page: http://www.marigostra.ru/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: position of dots

2012-01-07 Thread Keith OHara 
Werner LEMBERG  gnu.org> writes:

> > Moving the engraver to the voice context gives rise to a new set of
> > problems:
> 
> This looks like a plain bug to me which has been hidden up to now.
> 

The dot-note collision is probably a bug that can probably be fixed.

There can also be dot-dot collisions, though, if we move that engraver
and have dots line-up individually for each voice.

When chords mesh,
  << 4. \\ g'4.>>
LilyPond currently places the dot on the g' higher than she would if
the other dots weren't there.  If the dots are set independently for
each voice, we would need to teach LilyPond how to handle this case.


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: The problem with midi command delay in 2.14.2

2012-01-07 Thread Keith OHara 
Michael Pozhidaev  altlinux.ru> writes:

> After the migration from 2.12.2 up to 2.14.2 I have faced interesting
> problem and cannot decide is it a wrong behaviour or everything is OK
> and now there is another approach to write separate midi dynamics. 

I don't know any better way to enter dynamics.  I use
  \midi { context {\Voice \remove "Dynamic_performer" }}
so that the dynamics errors don't bother me.

We have it listed as a bug, that first appeared in 2.14, but did not seem
serious enough (compared with the other MIDI bugs) to stop releasing 2.14.

http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1661




___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

The problem with midi command delay in 2.14.2

2012-01-07 Thread Michael Pozhidaev 
Hi!

After the migration from 2.12.2 up to 2.14.2 I have faced interesting
problem and cannot decide is it a wrong behaviour or everything is OK
and now there is another approach to write separate midi dynamics. In
the snippet below there are four notes. When I generate the midi file
the \p command is applied only to second note when it should to the
first one as it was in 2.12.2. Please, help me, do I write something
wrong?

In midi output and generated with timidity wave file the volume of first
note and second is significantly different. What can cause this problem?
Here is the lilypond snippet and links to the files I've got
after compilation. 

Thanks!

\version "2.14.2"

One = {
  c'4 d'4 e'4 f'4 
}

OneMidi = {
  s4 \p s4 s4 s4
}

\score {
  \new Staff <<
{\One}
{\OneMidi}
  >>
  \midi { }
}

ftp://devel.altlinux.org/msp/tmp/problem.midi

ftp://devel.altlinux.org/msp/tmp/problem.wav

ftp://devel.altlinux.org/msp/tmp/problem.ly

-- 
Michael Pozhidaev. Tomsk, Russia.
Russian info page: http://www.marigostra.ru/

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: position of dots

2012-01-07 Thread Janek Warchoł 
Entered new issues:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2200
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2201

Is the problem appearing wneh engravers are moved an instance of
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1792
?

cheers,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Transposing Staff.keySignature

2012-01-07 Thread Keith OHara 
Nils  nilsgey.de> writes:

> I work frequently with custom keysigs, designed with \set Staff.keySignature
> Does anyone know how to transpose them?
> 
I don't know how.
If the key signature represents some pattern, though, it might be more clear
to define a mode, analogous to major, minor, or dorian.  These transpose.

wholes = #`(
(0 . ,NATURAL)
(1 . ,NATURAL)
(2 . ,NATURAL)
(3 . ,SHARP)
(4 . ,FLAT) ; maybe skip this one
(5 . ,FLAT)
(6 . ,FLAT))
\transpose c d' {
   \key c\wholes c d e fis
}


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Metronome Marks above a StaffGroup

2012-01-07 Thread Kieren MacMillan 
Hi all,

> It is not (currently) possible to move the "Mark_engraver" or the
> "Metronome_mark_engraver" to the StaffGroup level.  I'm writing a bug
> report about this.

It will be great to have this feature…

> You can add it to the first Staff of your StaffGroup .  The drawback is
> that there will be no mark above the StaffGroup if this first staff is
> removed (Frenched score: use of \RemoveEmptyStaves).

Perhaps better: define a MetronomeMark-only context and include it in your 
score wherever you want it.

Cheers,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: tighter polyphony

2012-01-07 Thread m...@apollinemike.com 
On Jan 7, 2012, at 9:23 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> Check out line 499 and line 522.

of note-collision.cc

> I'd make the 0.5 in both of these two different properties of the 
> NoteCollision grob (base-shift-factor and intersection-shift-factor, for 
> example).
> Then, you can play with this until you find something that you feel works 
> best.
> 
> Cheers,
> MS
> 


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: tighter polyphony

2012-01-07 Thread m...@apollinemike.com 
On Jan 7, 2012, at 8:48 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:

> 2012/1/7 Werner LEMBERG :
 Is there a possibility to tighten the horizontal distances in
 polyphony `chords'?  The Bärenreiter edition of Bach's Chaconne use
 only the half distances, approximately.
>>> 
>>> If i remember correctly, these values are hard-coded in c++ code.
>>> This is one of the things i'm interested in doing.  Last time i've
>>> looked at it (in the context of 1546) i got lost, there was a thread
>>> about it titled "in what unit is shift_amount measured".  What about
>>> attacking it together?
>> 
>> If you provide patches, I'll check and test them :-)  Beyond that I
>> currently don't have enough time, sorry.
> 
> ok, but i don't expect patches before two weeks (unless i get some help).
> 
> cheers,
> Janek
> 

Check out line 499 and line 522.
I'd make the 0.5 in both of these two different properties of the NoteCollision 
grob (base-shift-factor and intersection-shift-factor, for example).
Then, you can play with this until you find something that you feel works best.

Cheers,
MS


___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: tighter polyphony

2012-01-07 Thread Janek Warchoł 
2012/1/7 Werner LEMBERG :
>>> Is there a possibility to tighten the horizontal distances in
>>> polyphony `chords'?  The Bärenreiter edition of Bach's Chaconne use
>>> only the half distances, approximately.
>>
>> If i remember correctly, these values are hard-coded in c++ code.
>> This is one of the things i'm interested in doing.  Last time i've
>> looked at it (in the context of 1546) i got lost, there was a thread
>> about it titled "in what unit is shift_amount measured".  What about
>> attacking it together?
>
> If you provide patches, I'll check and test them :-)  Beyond that I
> currently don't have enough time, sorry.

ok, but i don't expect patches before two weeks (unless i get some help).

cheers,
Janek

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Transposing Staff.keySignature

2012-01-07 Thread Nils 
Hello,

I work frequently with custom keysigs, designed with \set Staff.keySignature

I noticed that they don't transpose with \transpose c' d' {...}

Does anyone know how to transpose them?

Nils

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Metronome Marks above a StaffGroup

2012-01-07 Thread Xavier Scheuer 
On 7 January 2012 18:21, Andrew C. Smith
 wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> On larger orchestral scores a metronome mark will appear at the top
> of each staff group (like strings, winds, brass, etc.) Is there a way
> to achieve this in Lilypond?
>
> I've tried removing Staff_collecting_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver
> from the score and adding them to StaffGroup, but that didn't do it.
> I can find anything relevant in the LSR or the docs.
>
> Any ideas?

Hi,

This is the same kind of request as here :
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-12/msg00395.html

It is not (currently) possible to move the "Mark_engraver" or the
"Metronome_mark_engraver" to the StaffGroup level.  I'm writing a bug
report about this.

You can add it to the first Staff of your StaffGroup .  The drawback is
that there will be no mark above the StaffGroup if this first staff is
removed (Frenched score: use of \RemoveEmptyStaves).

Cheers,
Xavier

-- 
Xavier Scheuer 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Metronome Marks above a StaffGroup

2012-01-07 Thread Andrew C. Smith 
Hey everyone,

On larger orchestral scores a metronome mark will appear at the top of each 
staff group (like strings, winds, brass, etc.) Is there a way to achieve this 
in Lilypond? 

I've tried removing Staff_collecting_engraver and Metronome_mark_engraver from 
the score and adding them to StaffGroup, but that didn't do it. I can find 
anything relevant in the LSR or the docs.

Any ideas?

-Andrew
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: tighter polyphony

2012-01-07 Thread Werner LEMBERG 
>> Is there a possibility to tighten the horizontal distances in
>> polyphony `chords'?  The Bärenreiter edition of Bach's Chaconne use
>> only the half distances, approximately.
> 
> If i remember correctly, these values are hard-coded in c++ code.
> This is one of the things i'm interested in doing.  Last time i've
> looked at it (in the context of 1546) i got lost, there was a thread
> about it titled "in what unit is shift_amount measured".  What about
> attacking it together?

If you provide patches, I'll check and test them :-)  Beyond that I
currently don't have enough time, sorry.


Werner

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: "include" music-function

2012-01-07 Thread Jan-Peter Voigt 
Ah, yes ... I will rewrite this, when I'm in my machine again 

Cheers, Jan-Peter


Am 07.01.2012 um 09:42 schrieb David Kastrup :

> Jan-Peter Voigt  writes:
> 
>> Am 06.01.2012 10:17, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
>>> Am 06.01.2012 09:35, schrieb Jan-Peter Voigt:
 Hello David,
 
 the \sourcefilename hint is helpful! Thank you!
 If I use this in my function and do a ly:parser-clone, the location
 is up to date:
 ...
 Now I will look, if this is working also with
 ly:parser-include-string while resetting filename and fileline at
 the end, so that definitions in the included file get into the
 current parser.
 
 
>>> ... yes it does:
>>> 
>>> --snip--
>>> #(define-public includeLocal (define-music-function (parser location
>>> file)(string?)
>>>(let ((outname (format "~A.ly" (ly:parser-output-name parser)))
>>>  (locname (car (ly:input-file-line-char-column location)))
>>>  (locpos (cadr (ly:input-file-line-char-column location
>>> (if (or (string=? outname locname)(string-suffix? outname
>>> locname))
>>> (begin
>>>   (ly:parser-include-string parser (format
>>> "\\sourcefilename \"~A\" \\sourcefileline 0\n" (ly:find-file file)))
>>>   (ly:parser-include-string parser (ly:gulp-file file))
>>>   (ly:parser-include-string parser (format "
>>> \\sourcefilename \"~A\" \\sourcefileline ~A\n" locname locpos
>>> (make-music 'SequentialMusic 'void #t
>>> --snip--
>>> 
>>> ... but if I include a file in an included file, it will not
>>> parse. I will investigate that for more info.
>> OK, now I had lunch and saw my own mistakes ...
>> 
>> Here are the two functions I implemented ... still a bit clumsy, but
>> it works for now ... if you are interested *how* and *why* to use
>> them, don't hesitate to mail me!
> 
> Actually, this is quite too complicated...
> 
> (ly:parser-include-string parser
>  (format #f "\\include ~S" file))
> 
> should likely be all that is needed here.
> 
> Sorry for thinking too complicated.
> 
> -- 
> David Kastrup
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-de...@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: "include" music-function

2012-01-07 Thread Jan-Peter Voigt 
Hello Carl, Hello David,
thanks for your replies!
I will read through those threads next week. This might help me understand what 
is happening under the hood.

The basic include is working as expected. But I think it would be a nice 
feature if one could search for files to include using scheme.

Cheers,
Jan-Peter

Am 06.01.2012 um 21:40 schrieb Carl Sorensen :

> On 1/6/12 7:28 AM, "David Kastrup"  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Now I don't want to repeat old mistakes, but I don't really have the
>> time for an extended investigation.  So if somebody gives me all the
>> data in a manner that does not require all too much thinking on my side,
>> I might try putting that kind of functionality back.
> 
> Here is a thread that discusses this problem.  You were not interested in
> eliminating
> parser-parse-file at this point, but it appears that it got eliminated
> anyway.
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.lilypond.devel/29392/focus=29404
> 
> 
> These patches came in response to issue 1096,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> where a segfault happened with parser-parse-string due to infinite
> recursion, IIUC.  Also see issue 1119:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A related thread (indexed in issue 1096) is:
> 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-02/msg00106.html
> 
> 
> HTH,
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> 

___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user