Re: [feature-request] optional duration for temporary

[Johan Vromans]

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:58:10 -0500
Kieren MacMillan  wrote:

> Rather than having to \revert an \override (or set of \override-s), might
> it be possible to set an optional duration for which the override would
> be in effect? e.g.
> 
>   \temporary #’(10 1/8) \override  
> 
> would lower the LyricText(s) for exactly 10 measures and 1 eighth note
> after the command was issued.
> 
> Just a “would be nice”.

I'd hate the counting of measures...

  { \local LyricText.extra-offset = #’(0 . -1) ... }

-- Johan

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

Poly rithm

[Christian]

Hi all, I can't seem to get the poly-rhytm to display properly...

flute = \relative c'' {
  \global
  \repeat volta 2 {
  g'4.^"Inzet bij couplet 4" e | fis d | e c | d b |
  }
  \time 2/4 a8 d fis e | d4. d8 | e8 d e fis |
  \time 3/4 \tuplet 3/2 { g fis e } d [c] b [g] | \time 2/4 a b c e |
g2\fermata |
}

oboe = \relative c'' {
  \global
  e4. c | d b | c a | b g |
  \time 2/4 fis8 g a b | a fis g g | e8 e a4 |
  \time 3/4 g4 g g | \time 2/4 g8 e g c | b2\fermata |
}

altoSax = \relative c'' {
  \global
  %\transposition es
  b4. g | a fis | g e | fis d |
  \time 2/4
\set Staff.timeSignatureFraction = 6/8
\scaleDurations 2/3
a'4. a4 g8 | a b c d c b | a2. |
  \time 9/8 d4. e d | \time 6/8 c4 b8 a g a | g2.\fermata |
}

Where did I go wrong?


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

PDF portfolio of 2.19.31 docs

[Nick Payne]

A fully indexed portfolio of the 2.19.31 PDF docs is available at 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/sb4bon4xgwx11vn/lilydoc-2.19.31.pdf?dl=0 (39Mb).


Needs Adobe Reader for the indexing to work - I haven't found a 3rd 
party PDF viewer that can use the index in PDF portfolios.


Nick

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

[feature-request] optional duration for temporary

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hello all,

Rather than having to \revert an \override (or set of \override-s), might it be 
possible to set an optional duration for which the override would be in effect? 
e.g.

  \temporary #’(10 1/8) \override LyricText.extra-offset = #’(0 . -1)

would lower the LyricText(s) for exactly 10 measures and 1 eighth note after 
the command was issued.

Just a “would be nice”.

Thanks!
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 22:50 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> > On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> >>
> >>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> >>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
> >>>
> >>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> >>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> >>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> >>> with polymetric music[3]. 
> >>
> >> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
> >> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
> >> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
> >>
> >> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
> >> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
> >> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
> >> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
> >> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
> >> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)
> 
> > Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> > this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.
> 
> Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
> where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
> annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
> idea of barnumbers.

Thanks for the clarification.  I don't think it's a problem so long as
two aspects of the workflow are covered:
1: during the preparation of the score, we'll need to be able to capture
the issues and display them somehow, and relate each issue to its place
in the score.  This does not need barnumbers as we still have source
code (and maybe an IDE).  Almost certainly not a problem.  2: Bar
numbers need to crystallise only at the publication stage.

> 
> >> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
> >> annotation type or a custom annotation property.

Now I get it.  The human being at the keyboard tells ScholarLy the bar
number.  I'm happy with that.  I might add a git hook to flash at me a
message: "Now go back and adjust the bar numbers in the
annotations!" :-)  Seriously: It will very rarely be an issue.

> >>
> >> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
> >> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
> >> maintains individual bar numberings for each context
> 
> > Yes, that appears to be the case.
> 
> >> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
> >> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify that.
> 
> > Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> > determined."
> 
> OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
> inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).

Sheesh Urs! I know you're bright, but I've just had this image of your
whipping out the phone in a few bars rest, with the thought "I've just
got time to fix the earthling's problem..."  :-)

> annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
> scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.
> 
> So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
> from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.
> 
> I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
> context (I can't really imagine it would work).
> What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
> Kieren would take as the "master" context.

This passeth my understanding.  I'll play with contexts in the morning.
Thanks again.

> I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
> barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
> there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
> interesting to check out anyway ...
> 
> Good luck
> Urs
> 
> > I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> > ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> > statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> > Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
> > up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
> > messing things up.  Must dash now.
> >>
> >> Urs
> > 
> 
> 
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Cross-staff arpeggio line AND arpeggio bracket on the same notes

[Jean Menezes da Rocha]

Hello, I am trying to transcribe some music which has notation like the
attached example image. There is a cross-staff arpeggio, with a nested
bracket indicating a cross-staff voicing. As per the examples I have found,
we can have only one or another, since the bracket should be printed using
the Arpeggio stencil.
Do you have any ideas on how can I achieve the desired result?

Thanks in advance!

-- 
Jean Menezes da Rocha
Compositor
Professor -- Faculdades Est
Mestre e Doutorando em Composição pela Universidade Federal da Bahia
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 18:06 schrieb Graham King:
> On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
>>
>>> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
>>> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>>>
>>> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
>>> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
>>> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
>>> with polymetric music[3]. 
>>
>> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
>> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
>> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
>>
>> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
>> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
>> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
>> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
>> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
>> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)

> Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
> this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.

Just to avoid misunderstandings: What I am thinking about is an approach
where you add a custom property passing a barnumber manually to the
annotation. I don't think we'll be able to manually modify LilyPond's
idea of barnumbers.

>> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
>> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
>>
>> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
>> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
>> maintains individual bar numberings for each context

> Yes, that appears to be the case.

>> and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
>> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify that.

> Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
> determined."

OK, I see why this happens (did I ever say that it is cool that I can
inspect openLilyLib code on Github using my phone?).
annotate "installs" itself in the Score context, and in polymetric
scores the timing-translator has to be removed from that context.

So to approach the issue one would have to remove \annotationProcessor
from the Score context and "consist" it in another context.

I don't know what would happen if it would be added to more than one
context (I can't really imagine it would work).
What would probably work *in principle* is adding that to the context
Kieren would take as the "master" context.
I assume (can't test currently) that any annotation would then get the
barnumber of the master context and the partial measure calculated from
there. Of course this wouldn't give very useful results but it would be
interesting to check out anyway ...

Good luck
Urs

> I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
> ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
> statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
> Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
> up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
> messing things up.  Must dash now.
>>
>> Urs
>> ___
>> lilypond-user mailing list
>> lilypond-user@gnu.org 
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
> 


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org

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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Simon Albrecht]

On 10.11.2015 21:59, Alberto Simões wrote:



On 10/11/15 20:57, Simon Albrecht wrote:

The cheapest way would be (using a syntax introduced very recently)
%%
sm = \tweak #'font-size #-4 \etc
{  }
%%


This sounds awesome. Love that \etc there :)


David K.’s work :-)


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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Alberto Simões]

On 10/11/15 20:57, Simon Albrecht wrote:

The cheapest way would be (using a syntax introduced very recently)
%%
sm = \tweak #'font-size #-4 \etc
{  }
%%


This sounds awesome. Love that \etc there :)

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

Re: two consecutive \mark at end and beginning of line

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mar 10 nov 2015 alle 9:28, David Kastrup  ha 
scritto:

It's still the same musical moment and LilyPond has no general way of
distinguishing them.  Try putting the first mark an infinitesimal 
amount

earlier, like

\grace { \mark ... \skip 32 }

to move it backward a 32th grace note.


I like the simplicity of this workaround.
But the first mark object is not printed if I use the \override(s) or 
the \tweak(s):


\version "2.19.31"

\relative {
 \repeat unfold 8 c'1
 \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility = 
#end-of-line-visible

 \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
 \grace {
   %\tweak #'break-visibility #end-of-line-visible
   %\tweak #'self-alignment-X #RIGHT
   \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" } \skip 32
 }
 \break

 \mark \default
 %\mark \markup\huge\bold\circle"A"
 f1
}




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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Simon Albrecht]

On 10.11.2015 20:31, Alberto Simões wrote:

Hello

There are musics where chords have a smaller note, that is optional.

I found some logs from this mailing list in 2007, suggesting things like:

   \tweak #'font-size #-4 g

Is there any easier way? (as in, less verbose).


The cheapest way would be (using a syntax introduced very recently)
%%
sm = \tweak #'font-size #-4 \etc
{  }
%%

To comply with Lily versions older than ca. 2.19.25, use
%%%
sm = #(define-music-function (parser location m) (ly:music?)
#{ \tweak #'font-size #-4 $m #})
%%%
instead.

HTH, Simon



In fact, I have a bunch of octave chords, where the upper note is 
smaller. If someone knowing a little of scheme would help me writing a 
macro/function for that, I would be much appreciated.


Best,
Alberto

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



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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[Nick Payne]

On 11/11/2015 03:33, RomanticStrings wrote:

I am no longer able to open the development version documentation web address
through Frescobaldi.  The program seeks to append /Documentation/index to
the address, but I am no longer able to find the prefix to achieve the
desired website.  Has the development documentation address changed?


I just checked with Frescobaldi 2.18.1 on my Windows machine. Selecting 
"Lilypond Documentation" off the Help menu brings up the 2.19.31 
documentation without any problem. You know you can Add/Change the path 
to Lilypond docs in the Frescobaldi preferences dialog? I haven't 
changed the path on mine - it points to http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19.


Nick

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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Alberto Simões]

On 10/11/15 19:36, Marc Hohl wrote:

Am 10.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Alberto Simões:

Hello

There are musics where chords have a smaller note, that is optional.

I found some logs from this mailing list in 2007, suggesting things like:

\tweak #'font-size #-4 g

Is there any easier way? (as in, less verbose).

In fact, I have a bunch of octave chords, where the upper note is
smaller. If someone knowing a little of scheme would help me writing a
macro/function for that, I would be much appreciated.


Perhaps

http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=538

is a good starting point for some scheme trickery?


Tried to apply it directly at first, but got this complain from lilypond:

Parsing...: While evaluating arguments to memoization in 
expression (do () (#) ...):

: Illegal empty combination ().

I am running LilyPond 2.19.30.

Thank you,
Alberto

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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Alberto Simões]

On 10/11/15 19:36, Marc Hohl wrote:

Hello

There are musics where chords have a smaller note, that is optional.

I found some logs from this mailing list in 2007, suggesting things like:

\tweak #'font-size #-4 g

Is there any easier way? (as in, less verbose).

In fact, I have a bunch of octave chords, where the upper note is
smaller. If someone knowing a little of scheme would help me writing a
macro/function for that, I would be much appreciated.


Perhaps

http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=538

is a good starting point for some scheme trickery?


Yay.

It shouldn't be harder than Perl :-)

lets try.
Thank you
Alberto

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

Re: Chords with "optional" notes

[Marc Hohl]

Am 10.11.2015 um 20:31 schrieb Alberto Simões:

Hello

There are musics where chords have a smaller note, that is optional.

I found some logs from this mailing list in 2007, suggesting things like:

\tweak #'font-size #-4 g

Is there any easier way? (as in, less verbose).

In fact, I have a bunch of octave chords, where the upper note is
smaller. If someone knowing a little of scheme would help me writing a
macro/function for that, I would be much appreciated.


Perhaps

http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=538

is a good starting point for some scheme trickery?

Marc


Best,
Alberto

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




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

Chords with "optional" notes

[Alberto Simões]

Hello

There are musics where chords have a smaller note, that is optional.

I found some logs from this mailing list in 2007, suggesting things like:

   \tweak #'font-size #-4 g

Is there any easier way? (as in, less verbose).

In fact, I have a bunch of octave chords, where the upper note is 
smaller. If someone knowing a little of scheme would help me writing a 
macro/function for that, I would be much appreciated.


Best,
Alberto

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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Abraham,

> Normally, this should work, but it doesn't seem to for me:
> \override Score.MetronomeMark.font-series = #'medium

This is what I wanted to do, of course…
But I think that “feature” is part of the [long-standing, and somewhat 
irritiating] issue around MetronomeMark formatting.

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[RomanticStrings]

Hmm...  That certainly does work.  I though that is what I was using
originally, and since it stopped working, I was looking to find the correct
address.  Now it works and I'm not sure what happened.  Problem solved, in
any case!  Thank you again for your help.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Documentation-web-address-change-tp183350p183369.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[tisimst]

tisimst wrote
> Does it just happen with 2.19.30? It worked for me with 2.19.29 on
> Windows.
> Wasn't able to check 2.19.30 yet. Will try in a few minutes.

Yeah, it works for me with .30 and .31 as well. Sorry. If there aren't too
many instances you need to un-bolden, then you can always use a \markup:

\tempo \markup { \normal-text "Tempo Test" } c''1

Normally, this should work, but it doesn't seem to for me:

\override Score.MetronomeMark.font-series = #'medium

Best,
Abraham



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fatal-error-on-MetronomeMark-font-name-override-tp183341p183368.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mar 10 nov 2015 alle 18:30, Federico Bruni 
 ha scritto:
Il giorno mar 10 nov 2015 alle 18:21, RomanticStrings 
 ha scritto:
Thank you, Federico.  I suppose it is not LilyPond's responsibility 
to match
its address to Fresco's preference.  Did the address just change, 
however?

A week or two ago the link worked.


I don't know what kind of link you used in Frescobaldi preferences. I 
would be surprised if it's an http link.


However, I don't think that anything is changed on lilypond website 
in the last 2 weeks.




My bad, just found this:
https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/534

Indeed, this works:
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/

Is it documented? (not on the italian help page)


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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[tisimst]

Does it just happen with 2.19.30? It worked for me with 2.19.29 on Windows.
Wasn't able to check 2.19.30 yet. Will try in a few minutes.

- Abraham

On Tuesday, November 10, 2015, Jacques Menu-3 [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n183356...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

>
> > Le 10 nov. 2015 à 17:53, Kieren MacMillan <[hidden email]
> > a écrit :
> >
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> >> Removing Century makes that to work on my Mac. Is this font actually
> installed on your system?
> >
> > Yes. And it shows up in the list returned by calling
> >
> >lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x
>
> Same for me…
>
> >
> > Thanks, though.
> > Kieren.
> > 
> >
> > Kieren MacMillan, composer
> > ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> > ‣ email: [hidden email]
> 
> >
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> [hidden email] 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>
>
> --
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
>
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fatal-error-on-MetronomeMark-font-name-override-tp183341p183356.html
> To start a new topic under User, email ml-node+s1069038n...@n5.nabble.com
> 
> To unsubscribe from Lilypond, click here
> 
> .
> NAML
> 
>




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/fatal-error-on-MetronomeMark-font-name-override-tp183341p183365.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: A command-line wrapper for OpenLilyLIb

[Urs Liska]

Am 05.11.2015 um 18:27 schrieb Matteo Ceccarello:
> On 04/11/2015 15:23, Mark Knoop wrote:
>>
>> You might consider using the pygit2 python module [1] rather than
>> calling calling git with subprocess. This could perhaps replace a
>> substantial part of your OpenLilyLibRepo class.
>>
>> [1] http://www.pygit2.org/
>
> Thank you for the pointer, I was not aware of that library. The thing
> is that using pygit2 would require users to install it along with
> ollc. Instead, I'd rather prefer the script to be as self-contained as
> possible, depending only on the python standard library, in order to
> make its installation as straightforward as possible.

I think this is the right approach.

With regard to the script I have a few comments/suggestions:

It would be nice if the tool could be used to *only* update the
openLilyLib versions without actually running LilyPond. This would be
useful in cases where you usually use editors (like Frescobaldi) to
invoke LilyPond and to create the actual command line to be used. And in
cases where `lilypond` is not the invocation to be used. I'm
specifically talking of my use of Frescobaldi, but I'm sure this holds
for many other users as well.

Maybe it would be cool if ollc could be made accessible as a module too.
That way external tools could integrate it more easily (e.g. have
Frescobaldi call it to set openLilyLib to the right state.

Best
Urs

>
> Anyway, I should keep in mind this library, in case there are bugs
> caused by the calls to git via subprocess.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Matteo
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


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

Re: A command-line wrapper for OpenLilyLIb

[Urs Liska]

Hi Matteo,

thank you for your renewed activity for openLilyLib.

Am 04.11.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Matteo Ceccarello:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I just implemented a small command line tool that I hope will simplify
> the use of OpenLilyLib [1] in multiple projects. You can find a
> motivating example in a blog post [2]. The tool itself, together with
> installation instructions and a small tutorial can be found on Github
> [3].
>
> Comments and suggestions are very much appreciated :-)

as I said earlier I have now released a post on Scores of Beauty. As it
has become more more than a simple pointer to your blog I pass the link:
http://lilypondblog.org/2015/11/future-of-openlilylib/

I think your ideas raise important considerations with regard to the
future development of openLilyLib, and I would really love to take the
opportunity to tackle the next step(s). But this will require some more
people stepping out and contributing because the task is too big for one
alone.

I think there are potentials to make openLilyLib a common extension
platform for LilyPond and a really useful tool for just about any user,
so I encourage anyone interested in its future to join and at least
discuss. Contributions are more than welcome, and we could use LilyPond,
Scheme, Python, and web design/technology skills.

Best

Urs

>
> Cheers,
> Matteo
>
>
> [1] https://github.com/openlilylib/openlilylib
> [2]
> http://www.dei.unipd.it/~ceccarel/blog/lilypond/2015/11/04/managing-openlilylib-versions.html
> [3] https://github.com/Cecca/ollc
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mar 10 nov 2015 alle 18:21, RomanticStrings 
 ha scritto:
Thank you, Federico.  I suppose it is not LilyPond's responsibility 
to match
its address to Fresco's preference.  Did the address just change, 
however?

A week or two ago the link worked.


I don't know what kind of link you used in Frescobaldi preferences. I 
would be surprised if it's an http link.


However, I don't think that anything is changed on lilypond website in 
the last 2 weeks.





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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[RomanticStrings]

Thank you, Federico.  I suppose it is not LilyPond's responsibility to match
its address to Fresco's preference.  Did the address just change, however? 
A week or two ago the link worked.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Documentation-web-address-change-tp183350p183360.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: Documentation web address change?

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno mar 10 nov 2015 alle 17:33, RomanticStrings 
 ha scritto:
I am no longer able to open the development version documentation web 
address
through Frescobaldi.  The program seeks to append 
/Documentation/index to

the address, but I am no longer able to find the prefix to achieve the
desired website.  Has the development documentation address changed?



Wrong place where to report the problem: this is not a problem in 
LilyPond but in Frescobaldi. I noticed it some time ago but didn't care 
for filing a bug:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/frescobaldi/documentation$20development/frescobaldi/rV3e7ZlZbzE/kg9NlHz6fX8J

Quick fix: build the doc locally or download it and point Frescobaldi 
to it. For example I have this path:


/home/fede/src/lilypond-git/out-www/offline-root




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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:09 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> 
> > 
> > (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> > "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
> > 
> > I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> > edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> > much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> > with polymetric music[3].  
> 
> 
> As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
> conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we
> can even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.
> 
> I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
> really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently
> general. But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if
> that's a viable approach given your material (that is: how many of
> these annotations do you expect, will the numbering be stable or will
> you have to expect any changes after the fact?)

Very happy to intervene manually in bar numbering.  The remainder of
this thread is opening my eyes to the difficulty of automating that.

> We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
> annotation type or a custom annotation property.
> 
> As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
> default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond
> maintains individual bar numberings for each context

Yes, that appears to be the case.

>  and that ScholarLY will just use the "local" barnumbers, without even
> knowing there's an issue. But it would be nice if you could verify
> that.

Scholarly gives the message: "Sorry, rhythmic position could not be
determined."
I hope I'm making a valid test: Had a bit of trouble integrating
ScholarLy with a short test score, so I just plugged the \include
statements and a \criticalRemark stanza into the
Isaac_Confessoribus_Prosa2.ly (which is full of polyrhythms).  Will pick
up again late tonight or tomorrow, to check that \scaleDurations is not
messing things up.  Must dash now.

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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[Jacques Menu]

> Le 10 nov. 2015 à 17:53, Kieren MacMillan  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Hi Jacques,
> 
>> Removing Century makes that to work on my Mac. Is this font actually 
>> installed on your system?
> 
> Yes. And it shows up in the list returned by calling
> 
>lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x

Same for me…

> 
> Thanks, though.
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 


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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Jacques,

> Removing Century makes that to work on my Mac. Is this font actually 
> installed on your system?

Yes. And it shows up in the list returned by calling

lilypond -dshow-available-fonts x

Thanks, though.
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[Jacques Menu]

Hello Kieren,

Removing Century makes that to work on my Mac. Is this font actually installed 
on your system?

JM

> Le 10 nov. 2015 à 16:56, Kieren MacMillan  a 
> écrit :
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> In 2.19.30, the snippet
> 
>   SNIPPET BEGINS
> \version "2.19.30"
> 
> \score {
>  { \tempo "Tempo Test" c''1 }
>  \layout {
>\context {
>  \Score
>  \override MetronomeMark.font-name = #"Century Schoolbook"
>}
>  }
> }
>   SNIPPET ENDS
> 
> leads [on my computer] to the error
> 
>warning: `(fondu -force /Library/Fonts/Century Schoolbook)' failed (256)
> 
> Any hints as to what I can do to fix this would be appreciated.
> 
> Alternatively, a simple way to un-bold the MetronomeMark (without using 
> custom functions, etc.) would be sufficient for my current purpose.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 
> 
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


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

Re: Scholarly footnotes

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 17:08 schrieb Graham King:
> ...  long snip ...
>
> I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is
> possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that respect.  So a
> Lilypond-only solution would be ideal for me, and would save others
> the prospect of learning yet-another-language.  

OK, on the long run I will want to have both, but actually it doesn't
matter where to start ...

> I'm brainstorming a bit here, but if, for example, ScholarLy could
> make its annotations available as a Scheme array for metadata and
> markup, the lilypond user could access that array in a \markup block
> after the end of the music.  Layout could then be left to the user,
> selecting just the desired elements of data.
>
> The array might look something like:
> (((author . "A.N.Other")
>   (bar . 2)
>   (beat . 1)
>   (text . "\markup { \note #"4" #1 } added")
>   ...)
> ((author . "F.Bloggs")
>   (bar . 5)
>   ...)
> ...))

I haven't looked in the code right now, but I'm pretty sure there *is*
such a Scheme tree structure at some point. The question is if that is
available at the moment we'd need it.
While parsing the input annotations are built and added to an array, and
when parsing is finished they are processed, i.e. sorted, (optionally)
filtered and exported. I'm not sure if a reasonable representation is
already available when regular markup is used and interpreted.

One thing should definitely be possible: Writing that structure out to a
temporary file and read that in at a later moment. Maybe this would
allow to use the data only in another bookpart? But that's something to
be discussed with those people who know more about the process of
collecting elements of a book.

With regard to layout I think at least a basic implementation should be
available with commands like

\criticalreport
(to print out a full default report)

\criticalRemark
(to print a single remark)

etc.

We would then have to discuss whether it's better (or feasible) to make
that stuff configurable or if we should simply leave it to the end user
to take them as a model for her own solutions.

Best
Urs

>
>
> I haven't looked in detail yet but, with luck, there will be a good
> correspondence between the lilyglyphs used in Latex and the notation
> elements available to \markup (Notation Reference, section 1.8.2)
>
> Maybe some default layout could be added later, for those dismayed
> equally by LaTeX and Scheme...
>>
>> I think 2) and 4) are principally equally appropriate, but to choose
>> one out of them we'd need a better idea of the concrete project (but
>> I can't ask specific questions about that).
>>
>> Both approaches would require additional development, either the
>> LaTeX code to handle the critical report or the same for LilyPond.
>>
>> I assume that making LaTeX do what you want is the lower hanging
>> fruit. And if development of a proper (i.e. generic) LaTeX package
>> turns out to be complicated or takes too long it will always be
>> possible to create a project-specific solution without serious
>> problems. With the LilyPond-only approach I wouldn't make a guarantee
>> yet if it's really achievable, although I assume so.
>>
>> On the other hand this will add a second tool and thus an additional
>> layer of complexity that may not be needed if you could achieve your
>> goal directly from within a LilyPond score.
>>
>> Then again, getting familiar with LaTeX may be a good investment anyway.
>>
>> Regarding some abstract "public interest" I'd say 2) and 4) are
>> similarly important and equally missing.
>>
>> HTH
>> Urs
>>
>>>
>>>  
>>> [1] From the Snippets Repository: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=368
>>> [2] http://lilypondblog.org/2015/01/introducing-scholarly/
>>> [3] lilypond-user list, November 2015: "ScholarLy and polymetric
>>> music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)"
>>> [4]
>>> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/usage/lilypond_002dbook
>>> [5]
>>> http://lilypondblog.org/2013/07/creating-songbooks-with-lilypond-and-latex/
>>> [6] http://openlilylib.org/musicexamples/index.html
>

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

Documentation web address change?

[RomanticStrings]

I am no longer able to open the development version documentation web address
through Frescobaldi.  The program seeks to append /Documentation/index to
the address, but I am no longer able to find the prefix to achieve the
desired website.  Has the development documentation address changed?



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Documentation-web-address-change-tp183350.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: Markup for repeated notes or phrases

[Stephan Neuhaus]

On 2015-11-09 19:40, David Kastrup (and Simon Albrecht) wrote:
> Stephan Neuhaus  writes: [...]

Thanks, both solutions work like a charm!

Now another thing, in the same context. Let's say I have

pattern = { 8 8 }

\relative c' { \repeat unfold 4 \pattern }

And let's say I want to add fingering instructions, but only to the
first  , as if I had written

\relative c' { 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 }

Can I do something similar?

Thanks in advance,

Stephan
-- 
GPG key ID 4BDA81D3
fingerprint 5F88 399F 8811 72BE B36A  FC93 4D13 FCB2 4BDA 81D3

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

Re: Scholarly footnotes

[Graham King]

Hi Urs,
first, I'm deeply grateful for your time and thoughtful insights.

Further comments interjected, below...

all the best
-- Graham

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 10:43 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:

> Hi Graham,
> 
> now I'll try to go into that somewhat more detailed.
> 
> 
> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King:
> 
> > 
> > I'm preparing an edition of sixteenth-century polyphony, using the
> > book-titling template[1].  The edition would benefit from some
> > footnotes/endnotes (the sort that say things like: "contratenor 1,
> > bar 99: semiminim A missing in MS").  How best to achieve this,
> > while preserving the "book-titling" appearance?  
> 
> 
> I've only looked at the description page of the book-titling template,
> but I don't see that it would affect any of this.
> With regard to footnote/endnotes you should first decide about what
> you want. Footnotes are something completely different from endnotes,
> both conceptually *and* technically.
> 
> As two rules of thumb I'd point out that
>   * numerous footnotes would seem quite distracting, so if you
> expect to have many annotations you'd put them in an appendix
>   * footnotes on the page itself have a quite high "visibility".
> 
> A common approach is to use endnotes for the commentary in general and
> use footnotes to indicate the really important comments (i.e. those
> you really want the performer to notice). Sometimes you even have
> footnotes that only point to the commentary at the end.

All fully agreed.  I'd be very happy with just endnotes.


> > 
> > Urs' marvellous work on ScholarLy[2] appears ideal, but outputs its
> > annotations in Latex,
> 
> 
> well, this is what is implemented so far ...
> 
> 
> > (and might have other problems - see separate thread[3]). 
> 
> 
> For the reference: This is now also in the archives, starting with
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00187.html
> 
> 
> > So I'm now wondering how best to integrate this with a published
> > score.  Several possibilities present themselves:
> > 



> > 
> > 2) Latex with \includepdf[5].
> 
> 
> I think this is the most straightforward approach. LaTeX would manage
> the volume as a whole, taking care of typesetting the textual parts
> and including the score(s). This wouldn't rule out having a
> LilyPond-created title page if you like that.
> 
> For your case that would mean you'd export the annotations to the
> LaTeX input file and use that from within the main LaTeX book file.
> However, this would still require writing a package to actually
> typeset the critical report. This is something that is still missing,
> and I'd be happy about the opportunity (and also some assistance) to
> do something about it. So far I've only used custom, project-specific
> code to typeset commentaries, but we'd need a general package that
> provides the infrastructure while still being configurable.
> 



> > 
> > 4) something else?
> 
> 
> Another good approach is very straightforward - apart from the fact
> that it isn't implemented yet. It would be good for ScholarLY to
> provide a way to produce a report by itself, as markup within a
> LilyPond score.
> I've never felt comfortable with writing markup in LilyPond so that
> would surely need significant advice from the list, but in principle
> it *should* be possible to write either
>   * a hook that outputs a report after the last page of the score
> or
>   * a command that inserts such a report at an arbitrary position
> (but I'm not sure if that can really be hooked in
> (what-information-is-present-at-what-stage-of-processing kind
> of question))
> 
> I think typesetting a report in LaTeX has some advantages regarding
> typsetting options and maybe versatility. But OTOH it would be good if
> ScholarLY could produce a proper report without forcing to have LaTeX
> to post-process it.
> 
> > 
> > I have used Latex (once!) and I'm prepared to do some learning, but
> > I'd welcome advice on the most efficient way to proceed, and the
> > pros-&-cons of each approach.

I confess I'm a bit daunted by the LaTeX learning curve, and it is
possible that I'm not uniquely inadequate in that respect.  So a
Lilypond-only solution would be ideal for me, and would save others the
prospect of learning yet-another-language.  I'm brainstorming a bit
here, but if, for example, ScholarLy could make its annotations
available as a Scheme array for metadata and markup, the lilypond user
could access that array in a \markup block after the end of the music.
Layout could then be left to the user, selecting just the desired
elements of data.

The array might look something like:
(((author . "A.N.Other")
  (bar . 2)
  (beat . 1)
  (text . "\markup { \note #"4" #1 } added")
  ...)
 ((author . "F.Bloggs")
  (bar . 5)
  ...)
 ...))


I haven't looked in detail yet but, with luck, there will be a good
correspondence between the lilyglyphs used in Latex and the notation
elements ava

fatal error on MetronomeMark font-name override

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hello all,

In 2.19.30, the snippet

  SNIPPET BEGINS
\version "2.19.30"

\score {
  { \tempo "Tempo Test" c''1 }
  \layout {
\context {
  \Score
  \override MetronomeMark.font-name = #"Century Schoolbook"
}
  }
}
  SNIPPET ENDS

leads [on my computer] to the error

warning: `(fondu -force /Library/Fonts/Century Schoolbook)' failed (256)

Any hints as to what I can do to fix this would be appreciated.

Alternatively, a simple way to un-bold the MetronomeMark (without using custom 
functions, etc.) would be sufficient for my current purpose.

Thanks,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: two consecutive \mark at end and beginning of line

[Xavier Scheuer]

On 10 November 2015 at 09:28, David Kastrup  wrote:
>
> It's still the same musical moment and LilyPond has no general way of
> distinguishing them.  Try putting the first mark an infinitesimal amount
> earlier, like
>
> \grace { \mark ... \skip 32 }
>
> to move it backward a 32th grace note.

Hi,

Actually there is no need for that if Federico replaces his
\once \override by \tweak and use Neil's "multi-mark-engraver".

I use this hack all the time for "simultaneous rehearsal marks"
(including this very case with both one at the end of a line and the
"simultaneous" one at the beginning of the following line).
Until now it worked flawlessly all the time and gave the expected
results. It is really powerful!

\version "2.15.8"  % or 2.18 or 2.19

%% add here the definition of "multi-mark-engraver" from
%% http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html

\layout {
  \context {
\Score
\remove "Mark_engraver"
\consists #multi-mark-engraver
\consists "Tweak_engraver"
  }
}

\relative {
  \repeat unfold 8 c'1
  \tweak #'break-visibility #end-of-line-visible
  \tweak #'self-alignment-X #RIGHT
  \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
  \break

  \mark \default
  f1
}

Cheers,
Xavier

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

Can I vary the system width for 1 system only

[Peter Berlau]

Hello,

I like to have a Sheet with 34 bars 
divided in 4 bars per system ( line )
2 bars rest
and a coda  8 bars

I know it is just 'cosmetic', but I really like
this, especially as musician, it is a good reminder
that the form is "something special" and avoids 
mistakes if improvising over song...
 
like to have a look like
(other bars similar like the last 4 bars)
C7D-   G7   Cmaj7
|||||last 4 bars melodie

D-G7
||||  % 2bar rest

  D-   Eb   D-   Eb
|:|||:|% coda


I found a ugly solution

with
\stopStaffs % generates 2 invisible staffs
s1
s1
\startStaff
for this i have to add on same place in the 
\chords  also 2  
s1 
s1
to adjust chords to the remaining bars

I think this is pretty ugly and there will be a much better 
solution...

Thanks for advice,
all the best,
 Peter






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

Re: scholarly/annotate

[Urs Liska]

Hi Craig,

somehow I missed answering this one, and I only realized that after
writing several other posts about the topic earlier today ...

Am 05.11.2015 um 02:27 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
> Hi Urs,
>
> Thanks for your detailed email. I agree wholeheartedly with your
> examples 1-4 above -- these would all be very useful for me. The score
> I'm working on (900-page handwritten manuscript from 1842) has natural
> horns and trumpets, and clarinets and flutes that change keys
> regularly throughout. I was going to include the original key of each
> instrument in the report to partially explain why the new transposed
> ranges are so high or low. For example using the current setup of
> annotate I'm creating a latex file that produces output like this:
>
> *M. 545,* beat 1, Flute 1: "Originally /Flauti in Es/ (which is a Db
> transposition)."
>
> or
>
> *M. 123,* beat 1, Horn 1: "Originally /Corni in Ab./"

OK, I think this is what I meant with a certain special case about your
particular score. If you don't convince me otherwise I would say this is
rather not a general use case and therefore it should be realized using
the custom properties just as you did and make sure that the LaTeX
commands understand them (see below for more details).

>
> On reflection this is probably fine, but I guess it could also be put
> into a footnote in the score (although there would be a lot of them.)

If that's not something the performer should be directed to notice I
wouldn't add numerous footnotes (but that is an *opinion*, not a rule).

>
> I don't know how using code such as the following would make this any
> easier or clearer when sending it to latex.
>
> \criticalRemark \with {
> message = "Originally \\textit{Flauti in F} which is an E\flat\
> transposition."
> original-instrument-key = \key ef \major
>   }

You're right.
If these transpositions and original keys have a significance that is
similar to other properties in your editorial situation they should be
encoded as properties.

Basically there are two approaches I can think of: Creating custom
annotation types (in LilyPond) or handle it in LaTeX commands.

As you've seen currently your custom properties end up in key=value
pairs in the optional argument. You can now "hand-code" a solution to
properly handle these keys to produce a meaningful result - or you can
help me implement a proper solution that can be generally useful (as
outlined in an earlier post today).

And maybe it would be useful to change the LaTeX export in general so
*all* properties end up in the optional argument and only the message as
the mandatory argument.

\criticalRemark

   [original-score-key={Key: #},

original-instrument-key={Key: #}]

{1184}{1}

{Flute 1}

{NoteHead}

{Originally \textit{Flauti in F} which is an E\flat\ transposition.}


would instead look something like:

\criticalRemark

   [measure=1184,
position-in-measure=1,
context={Flute 1},
item=NoteHead,
original-score-key={Key: #},

original-instrument-key={Key: #}]

{Originally \textit{Flauti in F} which is an E\flat\ transposition.}


That way one would have to implement one general approach to parsing the
keys, and maybe that would even give an opportunity to handle the
"templating" in a more consistent manner. I find the approach with named
properties cleaner than the current one that simply uses numbered
mandatory arguments.

One general thing: You pass along these custom properties as "music
expression". LilyPond accepts this and actually can interpret them but
the resulting LaTeX export is a string generated from the Scheme
representation. And this is something that LaTeX won't be easily able to
make any use of.

You should consider entering these fields in a format your intended
target platform can handle. Maybe split them into two fields, one for
the pitch and one for the mode, e.g.

\criticalRemark \with {
message = "Originally \\textit{Flauti in F} which is an E\flat\
transposition."
original-instrument-key = ef
original-instrument-mode = major
...
  }

This is not really concrete yet, but I do think we'll be able to figure
something out for you and improve the library for the general public
along the way.

Best
Urs

>
> Any ideas?
>
> Craig
>
>
>
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 at 21:39 Urs Liska  > wrote:
>
> OK, now I'm back again ...
>
> As said you should tell me what you want to achieve.
> - What do you want to communicate?
> - How (and where) do you think that should be visualized?
> - How do you think should it be encoded in the annotation?
>
> (This goes for your current example or any others you came across.)
>
> Then we can see if there's already a way or if it makes sense to
> implement something new.
>
> From your example  I'm not sure if it makes sense to approach it
> as you do.
> I suspect that 'original-instrument-key'  and 'original-score-key'
> aren't actually 

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Graham King]

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 21:53 -0600, David Wright wrote:

> On Mon 09 Nov 2015 at 23:22:14 (+), Graham King wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 14:55 -0600, Christopher R. Maden wrote:
> > 
> > On 11/09/2015 02:47 PM, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> > > The very first thing they said to me was, “Add measure numbers.”
> > >
> > > That’s sufficient reason for me.  =)
> > 
> > Good answer.
> > 
> > In that case, I would pick one part, and force those measure numbers in
> > as numeric rehearsal marks in the other parts.
> > 
> > Otherwise, you’d need a translation guide...
> > 
> > ~Chris
> > 
> > I guess Gould has a point.  I've just realised that, under my system as I
> > described it, a part could have the same bar number twice.  For example, in 
> > the
> > attachment below, T has two bars "9".  But apart from an ill-chosen number 
> > (in
> > this case), one could regard the "bar numbers" as "numeric rehearsal 
> > marks". 
> > Different mechanism, different formatting, same result.  In practice, for 
> > the
> > sort of music I'm dealing with, the polymetric sections tend to be quite 
> > short
> > so, for the most part, bar numbers are more helpful than rehearsal marks.
> 
> This is avoidable if each new bar is numbered with 1+(number of the
> bar—looking across all the parts—that most recently finished). Not
> something I could automate with my zero knowledge of scheme.


Very logical.
Advantages:
+1Might be amenable to automation.
+2Robust with respect to re-formatting.
+3Supports any variation of Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility (I
think).

Disadvantages:
-1On a given line, bar numbers increase in strange and surprising
ways, giving potential for confusion.  One cannot just count from the
start of the line and announce a bar number.

For that reason alone, I'm inclined to favour:
oCounting the bars of the top visible staff of the system, whilst
oAllowing discontinuity at the start of each line to accommodate
other parts that might have more bars in the previous line.

But that's just a personal preference.  I wouldn't want to impose it on
anyone else!  (and I'm prepared to accept the need to fiddle with bar
numbers manually at a late stage in the editing process).
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 14:28 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Urs,
> 
>> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.
> 
> Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex…  ;)

Of course it depends on the way an edition deals with that.


> 
>> Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that 
>> challenge?
> 
> I can’t find any!

I'll be sitting in the musicological institute this afternoon and will
skim through a number of complete editions.

And maybe I'll ask around among a number of composers and music
theorists if they have an idea about barnumber handling in contemporary
polymetric scores.


Urs

> 
> Cheers,
> Kieren.
> 
> 
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
> 


-- 
Urs Liska
www.openlilylib.org

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Urs,

> I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.

Well, the absence of [any] barlines makes barline numbering more complex…  ;)

> Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that challenge?

I can’t find any!

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Graham,

> On the positive side:
> +1This scheme guarantees a unique id for each bar.  The id increases in a 
> sensible manner.
> +2The scheme is robust with respect to re-formatting, if systems are 
> split or joined.
> +3Since Lilypond's default behaviour is to break lines only where 
> barlines co-incide and to number bars at the start of each line 
> (Staff.BarNumber.break-visibility = ##(#f #f #t)), it would work with that.
> 
> On the negative side:
> -1We have to introduce non-integers.  I don't think the current 
> bar-numbering engine will cope with that in cases where +3, above, does not 
> apply.

I didn’t really think of (or, to be honest, care about) Lilypond’s current 
bar-numbering engine; I was simply trying to solve a problem in notation. I can 
make the bar numbers appear however I want (by overriding the stencil, manually 
setting the barnumber counter, etc.).

> -2Where +3 does apply, musicians will get confused.  One will look at the 
> start of the line (bar "n") and count across in the conventional way (n+1, 
> n+2, ...) and announce the supposed bar number.  Everyone else will then look 
> on the wrong line entirely.

Sorry: I took it as self-evident [though, of course, it isn’t] that in 
polymetric music, bar numbers must appear on every bar, not just at the 
beginning of the line.

> On balance I don't think it would work.

Well, until I hear a superior suggestion, this is the one I’m going to use.  =)

Thanks,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


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

Development projects (was: Scholarly footnotes)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 03:52 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
> Hi Urs,
>
> What can I do to help you advance ScholarLY (or any of your other
> projects)?

Well, the next thing is to constantly nag (but in a friendly manner of
course) ;-)
But if you would want to do some active contribution you're of course
more than welcome!

> E.g. do I need to learn scheme?

Learning Scheme is probably a good thing for you (and I think it's a
good thing for the LilyPond community if more people manage to do so).
But if I were you I wouldn't expect to get to the point soon where you
can do substantial contributions. I don't want to discourage you, it may
well be a worthwile investment, but there are surely other ways where
you will sooner get positive feedback through achieving things.

> Do I play around with incorporating ScholarLY into Latex? What would
> be the most helpful for you?

So you know LaTeX? Then this would surely be something useful.
As I wrote in my earlier reply there is the need for a proper "critical
report" package. I do have some code for formatting report entries, used
in a time when I maintained the entries manually. And the LaTeX export
in ScholarLY is modele on that. But what I've never started on is a
*proper* package for that purpose. Out of my hat I see several
tasks/challenges:

  * Pull in entries from an input file (somewhat similar to citations)
  * Apply filtering and/or sorting to that
  * Make the appearance of the entries (and the whole report)
configurable in a way that is as user-friendly as one would expect
from a LaTeX package
(e.g. by providing commands to modify the appearance without
requiring the user to completely rewrite the command, or by
inventing some templating style)
  * Provide a way for handling custom properties. ScholarLY exports
unknown properties as key=value properties in the optional argument,
and the package should provide an infrastructure that the user can
define a way to process these properties and integrate them in his
custom rendering of the entry.


###

Another project that would clearly benefit from assistance is
openLilyLib where currently two major items are (unhandled) on the
roadmap: creating a documentation infrastructure and disentangling the
library infrastructure

A)
The continuation of developing the "new infrastructure" and moving the
existing content to that is more or less blocked on a proper
documentation system. I do not want the "new" openLilyLib to
significantly get new content before that is solved, any material newly
added should already use that documentation.
This involves two separate parts:
a)
"Designing" a documentation syntax that allows authors to document
modules in their code. This is what all programming languages support,
and LilyPond should have that too. This effort should therefore benefit
LilyPond in general, not only openLilyLib.
b)
Starting from a) we need a scripted solution to automatically produce
documentation for openLilyLib and deploy it on the appropriate server.

B)
I've successfully started out with a new infrastructure that makes the
use of openLilyLib much more straightforward, by using e.g.

\include "openlilylib"
\useLibrary ScholarLY
\useModule scholarly.annotate

I think this is a great improvement and has lots of potential for the
day when there are numerous libraries available. But I've also realized
that maintaining all these libraries inside a single directory
structure, and within a single repository, is not really scalable. This
will negatively affect

  * download size (everybody will have to get everything, regardless of
what they want to use)
  * maintainability (we'll have to give push access to a potentially
large number of library maintainers and contributors)
  * issue tracker

Therefore we should (now) find a way to disentangle openLilyLib in a way
so that any library can be maintained in its own repository. There
should be the openLilyLib core library that is responsible for all the
infrastructure and common functionality. The actual libraries should
then reside in a consistent location, presumably beside the core
library. And we should have a package manager that can take care of
dependencies and library versions.

Both projects may sound quite large, but I'm sure it's *only* the issue
of (human) resources and not one of inherent obstacles, and it would be
great if we could actually work towards these things. I'm quite positive
that this would provide a serious improvement in LilyPond accessibility
and user-friendly-ness.

Best
Urs


>
> Craig
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 at 03:42 Urs Liska  > wrote:
>
> Just shortly:
>
> I do think we'll find a good way for you, and I also think this is
> a good opportunity to continue work on ScholarLY. Especially
> considering that just a  few days ago Craig Dabelstein also asked
> about ScholarLY.
>
>
> Urs
>
>
> Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King:
>> I

Re: Scholarly footnotes

[Urs Liska]

Hi Graham,

now I'll try to go into that somewhat more detailed.

Am 09.11.2015 um 17:33 schrieb Graham King:
> I'm preparing an edition of sixteenth-century polyphony, using the
> book-titling template[1].  The edition would benefit from some
> footnotes/endnotes (the sort that say things like: "contratenor 1, bar
> 99: semiminim A missing in MS").  How best to achieve this, while
> preserving the "book-titling" appearance? 

I've only looked at the description page of the book-titling template,
but I don't see that it would affect any of this.
With regard to footnote/endnotes you should first decide about what you
want. Footnotes are something completely different from endnotes, both
conceptually *and* technically.

As two rules of thumb I'd point out that

  * numerous footnotes would seem quite distracting, so if you expect to
have many annotations you'd put them in an appendix
  * footnotes on the page itself have a quite high "visibility".

A common approach is to use endnotes for the commentary in general and
use footnotes to indicate the really important comments (i.e. those you
really want the performer to notice). Sometimes you even have footnotes
that only point to the commentary at the end.



>
> Urs' marvellous work on ScholarLy[2] appears ideal, but outputs its
> annotations in Latex,

well, this is what is implemented so far ...

> (and might have other problems - see separate thread[3]).

For the reference: This is now also in the archives, starting with
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00187.html

> So I'm now wondering how best to integrate this with a published
> score.  Several possibilities present themselves:
>
> 1) lilypond-book[4].  Requires extensive knowledge of Latex, and
> appears to be targetted at presenting small snippets within
> musicological papers, rather that large amounts of music with a small
> number of annotations.

Yes, I don't think that's what you need.

>
> 2) Latex with \includepdf[5].

I think this is the most straightforward approach. LaTeX would manage
the volume as a whole, taking care of typesetting the textual parts and
including the score(s). This wouldn't rule out having a LilyPond-created
title page if you like that.

For your case that would mean you'd export the annotations to the LaTeX
input file and use that from within the main LaTeX book file.
However, this would still require writing a package to actually typeset
the critical report. This is something that is still missing, and I'd be
happy about the opportunity (and also some assistance) to do something
about it. So far I've only used custom, project-specific code to typeset
commentaries, but we'd need a general package that provides the
infrastructure while still being configurable.

>
> 3) musicexamples.sty[6].

I don't think this is for you. musicexamples' target is quite similar to
lilypond-book. Or more concretely: you could use musicexamples' commands
and environment to include lilypond-book like music snippets in a LaTeX
document.

>
> 4) something else?

Another good approach is very straightforward - apart from the fact that
it isn't implemented yet. It would be good for ScholarLY to provide a
way to produce a report by itself, as markup within a LilyPond score.
I've never felt comfortable with writing markup in LilyPond so that
would surely need significant advice from the list, but in principle it
*should* be possible to write either

  * a hook that outputs a report after the last page of the score or
  * a command that inserts such a report at an arbitrary position
(but I'm not sure if that can really be hooked in
(what-information-is-present-at-what-stage-of-processing kind of
question))

I think typesetting a report in LaTeX has some advantages regarding
typsetting options and maybe versatility. But OTOH it would be good if
ScholarLY could produce a proper report without forcing to have LaTeX to
post-process it.


>
> I have used Latex (once!) and I'm prepared to do some learning, but
> I'd welcome advice on the most efficient way to proceed, and the
> pros-&-cons of each approach.

I think 2) and 4) are principally equally appropriate, but to choose one
out of them we'd need a better idea of the concrete project (but I can't
ask specific questions about that).

Both approaches would require additional development, either the LaTeX
code to handle the critical report or the same for LilyPond.

I assume that making LaTeX do what you want is the lower hanging fruit.
And if development of a proper (i.e. generic) LaTeX package turns out to
be complicated or takes too long it will always be possible to create a
project-specific solution without serious problems. With the
LilyPond-only approach I wouldn't make a guarantee yet if it's really
achievable, although I assume so.

On the other hand this will add a second tool and thus an additional
layer of complexity that may not be needed if you could achieve your
goal directly from within a LilyPon

Re: Markup for repeated notes or phrases

[David Kastrup]

Stephan Neuhaus  writes:

> Dear list,
>
> I have a piece that contains phrases that are repeated often. For
> example, let us assume that the phrase consists of two sixteenth notes.
> In the piece in question, the unit of repetition is in fact much longer;
> this is just an example. So I have done this:
>
> phrase = { c16 d16 }
> \relative c' { \repeat unfold 8 \phrase }
>
> But the composer has sometimes put expressive marks on some of the notes
> in the phrase, some of the time. For example:
>
> \relative c' { c16 d c d c d c d\staccato c d c d c d c d }
>
> Obviously I could do
>
> \relative c' {
>   \repeat unfold 3 \phrase
>   c d\staccato
>   \repeat unfold 4 \phrase
> }
>
> But this obscures the fact that the "c d\staccato" is the same as
> "\phrase", just with expression markings added. (When the unit of
> repetition is several bars long, this is not as obvious as in this
> simplified example.)
>
> Is there an elegant way to keep the structure visible, and yet to add
> markings to selected parts of \phrase?

You can do

phrase = { c16 d16 }
\relative c' \new Voice
<<
  \repeat unfold 8 \phrase
  { s8*3 s16 s16\staccato }
>>


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

Re: two consecutive \mark at end and beginning of line

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni  writes:

> Hi folks
>
> There's any way to let lilypond print the second mark in this minimal
> example?
>
> \version "2.19.31"
>
> \relative {
>  \repeat unfold 8 c'1
>  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility =
> #end-of-line-visible
>  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
>  \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
>  \break
>
>  \mark \default
>  f1
> }
>
> I'm getting this warning:
> warning: Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one
>
> As the first mark is at the end of line and the second at the
> beginning, there's no chance of collision. I would expect lilypond to
> print it.

It's still the same musical moment and LilyPond has no general way of
distinguishing them.  Try putting the first mark an infinitesimal amount
earlier, like

\grace { \mark ... \skip 32 }

to move it backward a 32th grace note.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: two consecutive \mark at end and beginning of line

[Jacques Menu]

Oops, completely missed the target…


The complex example by Arnold Theresius on LSR boils down in your case to the 
following.

HTH!

JM




\version "2.19.30"

% http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=892

%by: ArnoldTheresius

%%
% START of my personal include file 'double-mark.ly'
%%

#(define-public (string-or-markup-or-boolean? e)
   (or (string? e) (markup? e) (boolean? e)))

#(define (music-property-description symbol type? description)
   (if (not (equal? #f (object-property symbol 'music-doc)))
   (ly:error (_ "symbol ~S redefined") symbol))
   (set-object-property! symbol 'music-type? type?)
   (set-object-property! symbol 'music-doc description)
   symbol)

#(for-each
  (lambda (x)
(apply music-property-description x))
  `((left-label
 ,string-or-markup-or-boolean?
 "set the left part of a RehearsalMark")
(right-label
 ,string-or-markup-or-boolean?
 "set the right part of a RehearsalMark")
))

#(define (double-rehearsalmark-stencil grob)
   (let*
((grobs-event (ly:grob-property grob 'cause '()))
 (left-label (ly:event-property grobs-event 'left-label))
 (right-label (ly:event-property grobs-event 'right-label))
 (gap (ly:grob-property grob 'gap 1.4)))
(case (ly:item-break-dir grob)
  ((-1)
   (if (boolean? left-label) empty-stencil
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (make-right-align-markup left-label
  ((1)
   (if (boolean? right-label) empty-stencil
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (make-left-align-markup right-label
  (else
   (if (boolean? left-label)
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (if left-label
 (make-center-align-markup right-label)
 (make-left-align-markup right-label)))
   (if (boolean? right-label)
   (grob-interpret-markup grob
 (if right-label
 (make-center-align-markup left-label)
 (make-right-align-markup left-label)))
   (ly:stencil-add
(ly:stencil-translate
 (grob-interpret-markup grob
   (make-right-align-markup left-label))
 (cons (* -0.5 gap) 0.0))
(ly:stencil-translate
 (grob-interpret-markup grob
   (make-left-align-markup right-label))
 (cons (* 0.5 gap) 0.0)

doubleMark =
#(define-music-function
  (parser location left-string right-string)
  (string-or-markup-or-boolean? string-or-markup-or-boolean?)
  (if (and (boolean? left-string) (boolean? right-string))
  (ly:warning "~a \\doubleMark - at least one string or markup required" 
location))
  (make-music 'SequentialMusic
'elements (list
   (make-music 'ContextSpeccedMusic
 'context-type 'Score
 'element
 (make-music 'OverrideProperty
   'symbol 'RehearsalMark
   'grob-value double-rehearsalmark-stencil
   'grob-property-path (list 'stencil)
   'pop-first #t
   'once #t))
   (make-music 'ContextSpeccedMusic
 'context-type 'Score
 'element
 (make-music 'OverrideProperty
   'symbol 'RehearsalMark
   'grob-value #f
   'grob-property-path (list 'self-alignment-X)
   'pop-first #t
   'once #t))
   (make-music 'ContextSpeccedMusic
 'context-type 'Score
 'element
 (make-music 'OverrideProperty
   'symbol 'RehearsalMark
   'grob-value `#(,(not (boolean? left-string))
  #t
  ,(not (boolean? right-string)))
   'grob-property-path (list 'break-visibility)
   'pop-first #t
   'once #t))
   (make-music 'MarkEvent
 'label #f
 'left-label (if (string? left-string)
 (make-simple-markup left-string)
 left-string)
 'right-label (if (string? right-string)
  (make-simple-markup right-string)
  right-string)
 'origin location


%%
% END of my personal include file 'double-mark.ly'
%%


\relative {
  \repeat unfold 8 c'1
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility = #end-of-line-visible
  \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT

  \doubleMark
  \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
  \markup { \bold "A" }

  \break
  f1
}

%%

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 09.11.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Graham King:
> (This note describes an issue arising from the separate thread,
> "Scholarly footnotes" [1])
>
> I would like to use Urs' annotate.ily[2] to add some footnotes to an
> edition of sixteenth-century polyphony.  But, before investing too
> much time, I need to check whether there is now a way for it to cope
> with polymetric music[3]. 

As the discussion in this thread clearly shows this is firstly a
conceptual problem. Only if it is clear what you want to achieve we can
even start thinking about a solution implementation-wise.

I'm not so sure that it will be possible to implement a solution that
really works automatically and is at the same time sufficiently general.
But you'd be in any case to create a manual solution, if that's a viable
approach given your material (that is: how many of these annotations do
you expect, will the numbering be stable or will you have to expect any
changes after the fact?)
We would surely be able to taylor a solution using either a custom
annotation type or a custom annotation property.

As a start you could try out and tell us what LilyPond/ScholarLY do by
default if used in polymetric scores. I *assume* that LilyPond maintains
individual bar numberings for each context and that ScholarLY will just
use the "local" barnumbers, without even knowing there's an issue. But
it would be nice if you could verify that.

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

Re: ScholarLy and polymetric music? (bar numbering, \RemoveEmptyStaffContext)

[Urs Liska]

Am 10.11.2015 um 00:56 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Graham,
>
>> I've just realised that, under my system as I described it, a part could 
>> have the same bar number twice.
> My proposed solution would be an “analytic continuation” (to borrow a 
> mathematical term) of the non-polymetric measure numbering scheme:
>
> 1. A “reference context” would be established (in the case of “The Country 
> Wife", the PianoStaff), and the base measure numbers would be generated in 
> that context;
>
> 2. All other contexts would use the base-context measure number when and only 
> when the barlines align; otherwise, each context would use (e.g.) 38A, 38B, … 
> to indicate measures which begin within the moment encompassed by the 
> reference measure.
>
> I think such a system would be >95% sufficient.
>
> Thoughts?

This sounds pretty reasonable (from a notational as well as from a
rehearsal POV).
At least I would find that appropriate for polymetric contemporary
music, but I have no idea if it is also appropriate for ancient music.

Aren't there any useful references, how have others dealt with that
challenge?

Urs

>
> Thanks,
> Kieren.
> 
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
> ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info
>
>
> ___
> lilypond-user mailing list
> lilypond-user@gnu.org
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user


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

Re: two consecutive \mark at end and beginning of line

[Jacques Menu]

Hello Federico,

Someone on this list contributed a multi-mark-engraver, does that help you?

JM


\version "2.18.2"


% From: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html


#(define (multi-mark-engraver ctx)
   (let ((texts '())
 (final-texts '())
 (events '()))

 `((start-translation-timestep
. ,(lambda (trans)
 (set! final-texts '(

   (listeners
(mark-event
 . ,(lambda (trans ev)
  (set! events (cons ev events)

   (acknowledgers
(break-alignment-interface
 . ,(lambda (trans grob source)
  (for-each (lambda (mark)
  (set! (ly:grob-parent mark X) grob))
texts

   (process-music
. ,(lambda (trans)
 (for-each
  (lambda (ev)
(let* ((mark-grob
(ly:engraver-make-grob trans 'RehearsalMark ev))
   (label (ly:event-property ev 'label))
   (formatter (ly:context-property ctx 'markFormatter)))

  (if (and (procedure? formatter)
   (not (markup? label)))
  (begin
   (if (not (number? label))
   (set! label
 (ly:context-property ctx 'rehearsalMark)))

   (if (and (integer? label)
(exact? label))
   (set! (ly:context-property ctx 'rehearsalMark)
 (1+ label)))

   (if (number? label)
   (set! label (apply formatter (list label ctx)))
   (ly:warning "rehearsalMark must have
integer value"

  (if (markup? label)
  (begin
   (set! (ly:grob-property mark-grob 'text) label)
   (let ((dir (ly:event-property ev 'direction)))
 (and (ly:dir? dir)
  (set! (ly:grob-property mark-grob 'direction)
dir
  (ly:warning "mark label must be a markup object"))

  (set! texts (cons mark-grob texts
  (reverse events

   (stop-translation-timestep
. ,(lambda (trans)
 (if (pair? texts)
 (let ((staves (ly:context-property ctx 'stavesFound))
   (priority-index 0))
   (for-each (lambda (grob)
   (let ((my-priority (ly:grob-property
grob 'outside-staff-priority 1500)))
 (for-each (lambda (stave)

(ly:pointer-group-interface::add-grob grob 'side-support-elements
   stave))
   staves)
 (set! (ly:grob-property grob
'outside-staff-priority) (+ my-priority priority-index))
 (set! priority-index (1+ priority-index))
 (set! final-texts (cons grob final-texts
 (reverse texts))
 (set! texts '())
 (set! events '())

(finalize
 . ,(lambda (trans)
  (and (pair? final-texts)
   (for-each (lambda (grob)
   (set! (ly:grob-property grob 'break-visibility)
 end-of-line-visible))
 final-texts)))

\layout {
 \context {
   \Score
   \remove "Mark_engraver"
   \consists #multi-mark-engraver
   \consists "Tweak_engraver"
 }
}

markDown =
#(define-music-function (parser location text) (markup?)
   (make-music 'MarkEvent
   'direction DOWN
   'label text))

myMark =
#(define-music-function (parser location text) (markup?)
  (make-music 'MarkEvent
  'label text))

toCoda = {
 \tweak #'self-alignment-X #RIGHT
 \tweak #'break-visibility #begin-of-line-invisible
 \myMark \markup { to \hspace #1.25 \raise #1.25 \musicglyph #"scripts.coda" }
}

\relative c' {
 c1 | c | c | c \toCoda
 \bar "||" \break
 \mark \default
 c1 | c |
 \mark \default
 \markDown "23"
 c | c
}



> Le 10 nov. 2015 à 08:47, Federico Bruni  a écrit :
> 
> Hi folks
> 
> There's any way to let lilypond print the second mark in this minimal example?
> 
> \version "2.19.31"
> 
> \relative {
> \repeat unfold 8 c'1
> \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.break-visibility = #end-of-line-visible
> \once \override Score.RehearsalMark.self-alignment-X = #RIGHT
> \mark \markup { \musicglyph #"scripts.segno" }
> \break
> 
> \mark \default
> f1
> }
> 
> I'm getting this warning:
> warning: Two simultaneous mark events, junking this one
> 
> As the first mark is at the end of line and the second at the beginning, 
> there's no chance