ANN: Abjad 2.18

[josiah oberholtzer]

Dear friends,

I'm pleased to announce that Abjad 2.18 is now available.

Abjad is a Python API for Formalized Score Control

Abjad helps composers build up complex pieces of music notation in an
iterative and incremental way. Use Abjad to create symbolic
representations of all the notes, rests, staves, tuplets, beams and
slurs
in any score. Because Abjad extends the Python programming language, you
can use Abjad to make systematic changes to your music as you work. And
because Abjad wraps the powerful LilyPond music notation package, you
can
use Abjad to control the typographic details of the symbols on the page.

- Docs: http://abjad.mbrsi.org/
- GitHub: https://github.com/abjad/abjad
- PyPI: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/Abjad/2.1
8

Details of the new release appear below.



## Improvements

- [#715] Grace notes are now aware of their parentage above and beyond
their enclosing `GraceContainer`.
- [#703] Added a `synthetic_offset` keyword to `attach()` and
`IndicatorExpression`.
- This allows composers to attach effective indicators which start
*before* the score starts, allowing composers to model how various
indicators hold over from a previous section.
- For example: `attach(Dynamic('f'), voice, synthetic_offset=-1)`
- [#640] Many optimizations:
- Optimized hot code paths in Duration and Offset instantiation.
- Optimized timespan comparison.
- Optimized parser instantiation.
- [#626, #726] `Dynamic` now recognizes `sffp`, `sffz` and `niente` as
valid dynamic names.
- [#726] `Hairpin` is now niente-aware.
- [#628] Implemented a collection of command-line tools for working with
score packages.
- `ajv score`, `ajv material`, `ajv segment`, `ajv target`.
- These tools are provisional pending more extensive use.
- [#719] Implemented `TupletSpellingSpecifier.preferred_denominator`.
- This mirrors `Tuplet.preferred_denominator`.
- [#666] Abjad now formats LilyPond properties using the newer dot-chained
syntax, not the old `#'...` syntax.
- As always, Abjad targets the development version of LilyPond,
currently the 2.19 series.
- [#720] Non-reduced fractions can be attached to leaves just like
`Multiplier` objects.
- [#724] Equipped `Sequence.partition_by_counts()` with a `reverse` keyword.
- [#725] Equipped `Markup` with `.sub()` and `.super()` markup command
methods.

## Changes

- [#709] Spanners now attach **only to leaves**, **never to containers**.
- This represents a significant simplification in Abjad's score model.
- This change should generally be transparent to users, as `attach()`
does the work of iterating leaves in its component expression.
- [#709] Many spanners now attach only to 2 or more leaves at once,
including `Slur` and `Tie`.
- [#709] Removed `Container.select_leaves()`.
- To select a container's leaves, use
`list(iterate(container).by_leaf())`.
- To select the _first leaf_ of a container, use
`next(iterate(container).by_leaf())`.
- To select the _last leaf_ of a container, use
`next(iterate(container).by_leaf(reverse=True))`.
- [#628, #644, #643, #702] Tool-chain clean-up and refactoring
- `developerscripttools` was renamed `commandlinetools`.
- `DeveloperScript` was renamed `CommandlineScript`.
- Unused and obsolete scripts have been removed.
- [#717] Out-ported various classes to https://github.com/trevorbaca/baca:
- `Cursor`, `PitchClassTree`, `PayloadTree`, `CyclicPayloadTree`.
- [#714] `Selector.by_leaves()` is now `Selector.by_leaf()`. This
harmonizes with `IterationAgent.by_leaf()`.
- [#721] Added a new LilyPondCommand.prefix property.
- This makes it easy to position arbitrary strings relative to
components.

## Bugfixes

- [#655] `Tuplet._simplify_redundant_tuplet()` takes logical ties into
account.
- [#680] Abjad's docs post-process SVG images under Python 2.7 properly.
- [#736] Registration now takes quarter tones into account.



For installation instructions, see http://abjad.mbrsi.org/installation.html.

We hope you enjoy!

Trevor Bača
* mail: trevorb...@gmail.com
* home: http://www.trevorbaca.com/

Josiah Wolf Oberholtzer
* mail: josiah.oberholt...@gmail.com
* home: http://josiahwolfoberholtzer.com
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi David,

A long time UNIX user myself (pre 1970’s…), I follow what you are saying,
but you may want to explain to ordinary folks what clearing the caches does
and the command 'echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ‘, especially since the
OP is on Windows and does not have such nice things available.

OP - on the matter of downgrading, in my personal experience I have seen no
speed difference between the versions you mention.


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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[David Wright]

On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 19:37:54 (-0700), BGM wrote:
> Thanks for you interest, fellas.
> 
> I downgraded lilypond to version 2.19.36-1 and everything works as expected
> - that is, it compiles any of my scores normally in just a second or two.
> 
> My problems were all with the latest lilypond 2.19.44-1 version.

Well, I downloaded 2.19.44-1 (I'm linux x86) and the first run
of the same carol was very slow; the disk was churning throughout.
However, this laptop does have a *very* slow disk, usually being
gently fried at about 65-70°C.

These runs are all the same version, 2.19.44-1. I dropped the
caches halfway through.

real1m17.986s
user0m31.128s
sys 0m1.176s

real0m17.420s
user0m16.948s
sys 0m0.380s

real0m17.368s
user0m16.884s
sys 0m0.400s

# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

real0m30.748s
user0m16.960s
sys 0m0.596s

real0m17.565s
user0m16.832s
sys 0m0.500s

So I've gained another second! However, it's always possible the
system load is lower (ie, fewer tabs open in the browser).
But I don't see a problem in this version unless some particular
construction of yours provokes it.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Multiple slurs between chords

[David Kastrup]

Stephen MacNeil  writes:

> Hi David
>
> I notice both
>
> ^(_(d)
>
>
> and
>
> ^(_(d))
>
>
> work. The last with ))
>
>
> is one way "more" correct?

Slurs don't nest.  The current implementation does not complain about
spurious slur starts/ends.  It's only when the directions on slur starts
are straightforwardly incompatible that it sets double slurs (which
allows you to tweak the slurs from double slurs independently).

So pick the version you like better.  2.14 or so is a bit unpredictable
in its complaints (and will typeset only one slur anyway).

There is ongoing work for allowing multiple parallel spanners in other
ways.  I don't know whether this will change this behavior.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Cross staff dynamics

[Andrew Bernard]

I continually run into the problem where I have dynamics wth hairpins
across phrases which cross staves, causing lilypond to throw the
'cross fingers' error repeatedly in a cascade. Despite crossing
fingers (it is a well known fact I dislike this error expression) the
output places the dynamics poorly. If I left these errors in my score
I would have a hundred pages of the cross fingers output in the
compilation log, making it hard to see anything else.

Starting lilypond 2.19.44 [cross-staff-dynamics.ly]...
Processing `/home/andro/work/lilypond/fp/cross-staff-dynamics.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...
Preprocessing graphical objects...
programming error: My pure_y_common is a VerticalAlignment, which
might contain several staves.
continuing, cross fingers
programming error: My pure_y_common is a VerticalAlignment, which
might contain several staves.
continuing, cross fingers
programming error: My pure_y_common is a VerticalAlignment, which
might contain several staves.
continuing, cross fingers
programming error: My pure_y_common is a VerticalAlignment, which
might contain several staves.
continuing, cross fingers
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `/tmp/lilypond-2L7Ozf'...
Converting to `cross-staff-dynamics.pdf'...
Deleting `/tmp/lilypond-2L7Ozf'...
Success: compilation successfully completed


Is this a bug, or is it something fundamental I am doing incorrectly?

The workaround I have to use is to create a new voice for the bars in
question just for the dynamics. This is tedious and clutters the score
unnecessarily. For several reasons I do not want to create a dynamics
context in the score (this may be my mistake?).

MWE follows. [Probably not absolutely minimal, but it shows the
general context I have very often.]

Andrew

== snip

\version "2.19.44"

treble = {
  \clef treble
  \time 1/4

  \tupletUp
  \stemUp
  \tuplet 5/4 { f'''16_\f\> g'' a' fis'' ees' } |
  \tuplet 5/4 {
c'' f' f'8
\change Staff = bass
\stemUp
b16_\p } |
}

bass =  {
  \clef bass
  \time 1/4
  c4 c
}

\score {
  \new PianoStaff
  <<
\new Staff = "treble" { \treble }
\new Staff = "bass" { \bass }
  >>

  \layout { }
}



== snip

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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[BGM]

Thanks for you interest, fellas.

I downgraded lilypond to version 2.19.36-1 and everything works as expected
- that is, it compiles any of my scores normally in just a second or two.

My problems were all with the latest lilypond 2.19.44-1 version.

I am using Frescibaldo 2.19 on Windows 7 Pro x64.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Long-Compile-time-with-version-2-19-44-tp192343p192357.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: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Gabriel-Marie,

What platform are you using? Linux, Windows, Mac? Can you tell us
that, and the OS version? Which Frescobaldi are you running - platform
distribution, or a build from source?

Can you obtain timings from the command line to compare with Frescobaldi?

I have observed the Frescobaldi 2.19 behaves strangely compared to
2.18 in all sorts of ways. Given that there is not a vast set of
improvements to be found in 2.19 when all is said and done. you may be
better off sticking with Frescobaldi 2.18.

You could also try posting to the Frescobaldi group, but it is very
low traffic and not very responsive - but you never know!

Andrew

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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[David Wright]

On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 15:15:42 (-0700), BGM wrote:
> Well, it seems like it hangs on just starting lilypond.  (and, as I've
> mentioned, I didn't have this problem with version 2.18)
> 
> As soon as it gets past this line...
> So, this line takes 99% of the time in the progressbar:
> Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [whatever.ly]...
> 
> then all the rest progresses nice and fast.
> 
> Processing `C:/hymns/whatever.ly'
> Parsing...
> Interpreting music...[8][16]
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
> Interpreting music...
> MIDI output to `whatever.mid'...
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
> Fitting music on 1 page...
> Drawing systems...
> Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'...
> Converting to `whatever.pdf'...
> Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'...
> Success: compilation successfully completed
> Completed successfully in 30.0".

Here are some timings off a reasonably sized carol that generates
seven MIDI files and three PDFs. Old and new versions alternate
(2.18.2 and 2.19.42).

# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

real0m33.921s
user0m20.040s
sys 0m0.716s

real0m28.471s
user0m17.696s
sys 0m0.756s

real0m20.586s
user0m19.832s
sys 0m0.556s

real0m18.838s
user0m17.600s
sys 0m0.744s

real0m20.535s
user0m19.800s
sys 0m0.596s

real0m18.677s
user0m17.456s
sys 0m0.844s

So the new version wins by about two seconds.

Note the difference that caching the program makes. You've got to run
a program twice (at least) to get a realistic time.

I always put all the structure of my scores in \score;
ie I don't write   variable = \new ...
so I have no comparative data. However, if you try doing
this, remember again to run both versions twice or you may
only be measuring the efficiency of the operating system.

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Multiple slurs between chords

[Stephen MacNeil]

Hi David

I notice both

^(_(d)


and

^(_(d))


work. The last with ))


is one way "more" correct?


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

Re: appoggiatura problem

[Michael Rivers]

Encountering this bug for the first time is a right of passage. It will
probably not be fixed in our lifetimes.

Congratulations, you are now a Lilyponder!



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/appoggiatura-problem-tp192328p192353.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: GSoC update; Q's about final/draft modes, and triggering footnotes

[Jeffery Shivers]

Absolutely - in fact, using the presence of offset to indicate *I'm a
footnote* was just a practical solution since I am sure some projects won't
*always* want annotations to become footnotes, and with this check
 wouldn't need to specify explicitly *when* and *when not*.

However, maybe it would be best to go ahead and use a global boolean
((true) annotations always footnotes (regardless of offset), or (false)
only when set in each context-mod to true (which could still be taken from
offset's presence to avoid an additional/separate indication - at least
while automatically-placed offsets don't exist). That may be the more
appropriate way to handle it.

Hmm, intelligent/automatic footnote offsets - that sure would be nice.

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Simon Albrecht 
wrote:

> On 05.07.2016 03:31, Jeffery Shivers wrote:
>
>> Since offset is presumably always going to be used for footnotes, I think
>> *that* should be what triggers the footnote. So, inclusion of `offset =
>> #'(...)` will tell scholarLY that the annotation is a footnote; otherwise
>> it *isn't*. If it's preferred to rather have an explicit boolean (like
>> apply-footnote = ##t, or whatever), that could work. But I will say that I
>> prefer using something as obvious as offset as a sort of automatic
>> indication of footnote-ness.
>>
>
> As long as one _has_ to manually specify the offset, that’s sensible. And
> if Lily ever gets clever enough to place the footnote items on her own, it
> will be easy enough to change this behaviour, I assume.
>
> Best, Simon
>
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: PDF author metadata

[Simon Albrecht]

On 07.07.2016 09:43, Andrew Bernard wrote:
I was putting the custom PDF fields in the paper block, not the header 
block (lilypond keeps quite about this).


In a \header and \paper block, just like on top level, you can perform 
any assignment you want. Only question is if the value will be queried 
anywhere.


Best, Simon

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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[BGM]

Well, it seems like it hangs on just starting lilypond.  (and, as I've
mentioned, I didn't have this problem with version 2.18)

As soon as it gets past this line...
So, this line takes 99% of the time in the progressbar:
Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [whatever.ly]...

then all the rest progresses nice and fast.

Processing `C:/hymns/whatever.ly'
Parsing...
Interpreting music...[8][16]
Preprocessing graphical objects...
Interpreting music...
MIDI output to `whatever.mid'...
Finding the ideal number of pages...
Fitting music on 1 page...
Drawing systems...
Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'...
Converting to `whatever.pdf'...
Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-WYGD9b'...
Success: compilation successfully completed
Completed successfully in 30.0".



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Long-Compile-time-with-version-2-19-44-tp192343p192350.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: Multiple slurs between chords

[David Kastrup]

Stephen MacNeil  writes:

> \set doubleSlurs = ##t
>
>  (d)

Or just ^(_( d) since two slurs with explicit direction will both
be kept around.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[David Kastrup]

"Br. Gabriel-Marie | SSPX"  writes:

> Recently I updated my lilypond from 2.18 to 2.19.44.  I am using
> Frescobaldi for the GUI.
> It used to take only a few seconds to compile a score, but now it
> takes at least 28 seconds every time.
> This is the case even if I don't create a midi.
>
> Am I missing something, or is this the case for everyone?
>
> Even for this minimal example without any compile errors, it took 28.3
> seconds - which is my new average time.

[...]

Nothing unusual here (64bit executable, native Linux compilation).  I
suspect some platform/font/conversion/path/Frescobaldi problem.

Does the Frescobaldi window make it possible to see just after which
console output LilyPond spends most of the time playing dead?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: offset for lyrics does not offset the lyric hyphens

[Thomas Morley]

2016-07-07 18:23 GMT+02:00 Br. Gabriel-Marie | SSPX :
> Mr. Morley,
>
> Hey!  That's it!  Thank you very much!  It works just like I imagined it
> could!
>
> The only thing I can complain about with this is that it takes forever
> (nearly 30 seconds, anyway; normally it only takes a few seconds) to
> compile.  Here is the error log I get for your script:
>
> Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [stanza-number-every-line-04.ly]...
>
> Processing `C:/lilypond/ly/stanza-number-every-line-04.ly'
>
> Parsing...
>
> Interpreting music...
>
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
>
> programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.150681
>
> continuing, cross fingers
[...]

Can't confirm, neither the longer compiling time nor the programming errors.
I've a clean compilation on my system
Linux 64-bit Ubuntu 16.04
no error, no warning.

So I've no idea what's the problem for you,
  Harm

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

Re: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[BGM]

Okay, when I try exactly that, I still get 28.8 seconds for compile time. 
Moving the \new statements does not change anything for me.



--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Long-Compile-time-with-version-2-19-44-tp192343p192346.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: Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[tisimst]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 2:25 PM, BGM [via Lilypond] <
ml-node+s1069038n192343...@n5.nabble.com> wrote:

> Recently I updated my lilypond from 2.18 to 2.19.44.  I am using
> Frescobaldi for the GUI.
> It used to take only a few seconds to compile a score, but now it takes at
> least 28 seconds every time.
> This is the case even if I don't create a midi.
>
> Am I missing something, or is this the case for everyone?
>
> Even for this minimal example without any compile errors, it took 28.3
> seconds - which is my new average time.
>
> \version "2.19.44"
> \header {
> title = "Minimal Example"
> }
>
> verses = \new Voice = "verses" \relative c'' {
> \time 4/4
> \key c \major
> a4 b4 c4 d4 | e4 d4 f2  \bar "||"
> }
>
> wordsOne = \new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" {
>  Here are some wo -- rds to sing
> }
> wordsTwo = \new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" {
> And line up wi -- th them -- selves
> }
> wordsThree = \new Lyrics \lyricsto "verses" {
> See the stanz -- as line up in place
> }
>
> \score {
> <<
> \new Staff{   \verses }
>\wordsOne
> \wordsTwo
>\wordsThree
> >>
> \layout {
>
> }
> }
>
> Here is my output:
>
> Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [Untitled]...
>
> Processing
> `c:/users/brgabr~1/appdata/local/temp/frescobaldi-a08kr0/tmplcpzp0/
> document.ly'
>
> Parsing...
>
> Interpreting music...
>
> Preprocessing graphical objects...
>
> Finding the ideal number of pages...
>
> Fitting music on 1 page...
>
> Drawing systems...
>
> Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-TVi8uT'...
>
> Converting to `document.pdf'...
>
> Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-TVi8uT'...
>
> Success: compilation successfully completed
>
> Completed successfully in 28.3".
>

I can confirm a very similar looong compilation time on 2.19.36 (over a
minute for me, actually). Re-factoring the code to put all the \new
statements inside the \score block then made the compilation time to 2
seconds:

%%%

\version "2.19.36"
\header {
title = "Minimal Example"
}

verses = \relative c'' {
\time 4/4
\key c \major
a4 b4 c4 d4 | e4 d4 f2  \bar "||"
}

wordsOne = \lyricmode {
 Here are some wo -- rds to sing
}
wordsTwo = \lyricmode {
And line up wi -- th them -- selves
}
wordsThree = \lyricmode {
See the stanz -- as line up in place
}

\score {
<<
\new Staff { \new Voice = "verses" \verses }
\new Lyrics \lyricsto "verses" \wordsOne
\new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" \wordsTwo
\new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" \wordsThree
>>
\layout { }
}

%%%

So, no explanation from me, only an observation.

HTH,
Abraham




--
View this message in context: 
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Long-Compile-time-with-version-2-19-44-tp192343p192345.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

Long Compile time with version 2.19.44

[Br. Gabriel-Marie | SSPX]

Recently I updated my lilypond from 2.18 to 2.19.44.  I am 
using Frescobaldi for the GUI.
It used to take only a few seconds to compile a score, but 
now it takes at least 28 seconds every time.

This is the case even if I don't create a midi.

Am I missing something, or is this the case for everyone?

Even for this minimal example without any compile errors, it 
took 28.3 seconds - which is my new average time.


\version "2.19.44"
\header {
title = "Minimal Example"
}

verses = \new Voice = "verses" \relative c'' {
\time 4/4
\key c \major
a4 b4 c4 d4 | e4 d4 f2  \bar "||"
}

wordsOne = \new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" {
 Here are some wo -- rds to sing
}
wordsTwo = \new Lyrics  \lyricsto "verses" {
And line up wi -- th them -- selves
}
wordsThree = \new Lyrics \lyricsto "verses" {
See the stanz -- as line up in place
}

\score {
<<
\new Staff{   \verses }
   \wordsOne
\wordsTwo
   \wordsThree
>>
\layout {

}
}

Here is my output:

Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 [Untitled]...

Processing 
`c:/users/brgabr~1/appdata/local/temp/frescobaldi-a08kr0/tmplcpzp0/document.ly'


Parsing...

Interpreting music...

Preprocessing graphical objects...

Finding the ideal number of pages...

Fitting music on 1 page...

Drawing systems...

Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-TVi8uT'...

Converting to `document.pdf'...

Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-TVi8uT'...

Success: compilation successfully completed

Completed successfully in 28.3".




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

Re: Multiple slurs between chords

[Joel C. Salomon]

An hour ago, I wrote:
> (In the [attached] larger file, I was able to put an explicit \oneVoice
> overriding \voiceTwo and imitate the printed version, but this only
> worked for the upper staff, and not in my excerpt.)
> 
> Can anyone suggest the correct way forward?

I figured something out; whether it’s the Right Thing to Do™ or an awful
kluge I leave for others to judge:

I split the chord between voices, but included an explicit \voiceOne or
\voiceTwo override to get the stem directions the same.

\version "2.19"
\language "english"

upperOne = \relative c' {
\voiceOne
e4.(d4) %…
\oneVoice   r8  |

\voiceOne
% file continues
}

upperTwo = \relative c' {
\voiceOne
cs4._(   d4) s8  |

\voiceTwo
% file continues
}

lowerOne = \relative c' {
\voiceTwo
g4.^(   fs4)%…
\oneVoice   r8   |

\voiceOne
% file continues
}

lowerTwo = \relative c' {
\voiceTwo
a,4.(   d4) s8  |

\voiceTwo
% file continues
}

\score {
\new PianoStaff <<
\new Staff = "upper" <<
\clef treble\key d \major   \time 6/8
\upperOne
\new Voice \upperTwo
>>
\new Staff = "lower" <<
\clef bass  \key d \major   \time 6/8
\lowerOne
\new Voice \lowerTwo
>>
>>
\layout {}
\midi {}
}

—Joel C. Salomon

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

RE:Multiple slurs between chords

[Stephen MacNeil]

\set doubleSlurs = ##t

 (d)


other part


\set doubleSlurs = ##t

4.(4)


HTH

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

Re: multi-mark-engraver not working?

[David Nalesnik]

Hi Nik,

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Nik Repka  wrote:
> Hello all:
>
> I'm using code from this snippet:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html to
> create two marks that are split from one another over a system break.  Many
> people on the web are reporting that it works perfectly for them, but for
> me, the two marks remain together.  Here is an example:
>
>  multi-mark engraver definition here
> \layout {
>  \context {
>\Score
>\remove "Mark_engraver"
>\consists #multi-mark-engraver
>\consists "Tweak_engraver"
>  }
> }
>
>
>
> \relative c' { c4 c c c
>   \mark \markup{D.S. al Coda}  \break
>\mark \markup{CODA} c c c c }
> %
>
>
> Any ideas what is wrong or how to fix it?  This is a pretty important thing
> to be able to typeset honestly...
>


It does work, but you're missing the extra tweaks that the example at
the link includes.   Try this, for example:

\relative c' {
  c4 c c c
  \tweak #'self-alignment-X #RIGHT
  \tweak #'break-visibility #begin-of-line-invisible
  \mark \markup{D.S. al Coda}
  \break
  \mark \markup{CODA} c c c c
}

You don't say what version you're using, but in more recent versions
Tweak_engraver is already part of the Score context, so you could
remove that line.

Hope this helps,
David

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Joel C. Salomon]

On 2016-07-07 5:38 AM, Federico Bruni wrote:
> The standard does not take into account that the author of the document
> might be different from the author of the __content__ in the document?
> 
> What's more relevant when you search a document? The person who created
> the document in a computer or the author of the content of the document?
> Most of times it's the latter. If I have a library of ebooks and search
> an author name, I want to find the real author of the books, not the
> publisher name or whoever created the ebook.

Having just typeset an e-book, I would point out that the “Dublin Core”
metadata standard which EPUB files use explicitly lists the various
creators’ and contributors’ roles: a music score might have a Composer
[cmp] and a Typographer [tyg] but not necessarily an Author [aut].

—Joel C. Salomon

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 00:52:53 (-0700), Andrew Bernard wrote:
>> This may be the standard, but it is woefully ambiguous, and text-centric.
>> In the case of a music composition, is is the composer or the engraver? Is
>> the ‘document’ the music, or the setting of it?
>
> Neither. It's the PDF document itself.
>
>> Setting Author to the name of the composer does not make it clear to
>> anybody who the composer is. These PDF standards may be iron clad rulings,
>> but they are not well thought out for non-text works.
>
> But the metadata to which "Author" belongs is the *document* metadata,
> not contents metadata. Document metadata is a level above any
> consideration of what the document's contents might represent. The
> designers carefully included this metadata for document handling, and
> gave you Metadata Streams for any sort of *content* handling you might
> wish for. They had their thinking-hats on. :)
>
> There's no problem with LP adding extra keys for content metadata,
> except that many programs will ignore it and not make it available
> to you. So, for example, pdfinfo (Glyph & Cog, LLC) ignores the
> Poet that LP can include.
>
> BTW one of the odd "assumptions" made in LP is in that variable called
> poet. What about compositions whose lyrics are prose?

You mean like Skal han steges på spid eller brunes i gryde?

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[David Wright]

On Thu 07 Jul 2016 at 00:52:53 (-0700), Andrew Bernard wrote:
> This may be the standard, but it is woefully ambiguous, and text-centric.
> In the case of a music composition, is is the composer or the engraver? Is
> the ‘document’ the music, or the setting of it?

Neither. It's the PDF document itself.

> Setting Author to the name of the composer does not make it clear to
> anybody who the composer is. These PDF standards may be iron clad rulings,
> but they are not well thought out for non-text works.

But the metadata to which "Author" belongs is the *document* metadata,
not contents metadata. Document metadata is a level above any
consideration of what the document's contents might represent. The
designers carefully included this metadata for document handling, and
gave you Metadata Streams for any sort of *content* handling you might
wish for. They had their thinking-hats on. :)

There's no problem with LP adding extra keys for content metadata,
except that many programs will ignore it and not make it available
to you. So, for example, pdfinfo (Glyph & Cog, LLC) ignores the
Poet that LP can include.

BTW one of the odd "assumptions" made in LP is in that variable called
poet. What about compositions whose lyrics are prose?

Cheers,
David.

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

multi-mark-engraver not working?

[Nik Repka]

Hello all:

I'm using code from this snippet: 
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2011-08/msg00157.html to 
create two marks that are split from one another over a system break.  
Many people on the web are reporting that it works perfectly for them, 
but for me, the two marks remain together.  Here is an example:


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



\relative c' { c4 c c c
  \mark \markup{D.S. al Coda}  \break
   \mark \markup{CODA} c c c c }
%


Any ideas what is wrong or how to fix it?  This is a pretty important 
thing to be able to typeset honestly...


Best,

Nik


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

Re: appoggiatura problem

[bb]

Many tahnks! Have understood the problem.

Regards

Am 07.07.2016 um 17:42 schrieb David Kastrup:

bb  writes:


I tried to write a treble line and a bass line. The treble line has an
appoggiatura at the beginning, the bass line has not. If you compile
that attached snippet you will find the appoggiatura before the time
definition. in the second measure/bar it is not.

There is also a strange treble clef in front of the bassline - only in
the short snippet I prepared for the derfinition of the question. In
the much longer original lilypond document I am working on it is not?

What is wrong with this??? I found no solution in my
experiments. Thanks for any help!

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/special-rhythmic-concerns#index-grace_002dnote-synchronization>




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

Re: offset for lyrics does not offset the lyric hyphens

[Br. Gabriel-Marie | SSPX]

Mr. Morley,

Hey!  That's it!  Thank you very much!  It works just like I 
imagined it could!


The only thing I can complain about with this is that it 
takes forever (nearly 30 seconds, anyway; normally it only 
takes a few seconds) to compile.  Here is the error log I 
get for your script:


Starting lilypond-windows.exe 2.19.44 
[stanza-number-every-line-04.ly]...


Processing `C:/lilypond/ly/stanza-number-every-line-04.ly'

Parsing...

Interpreting music...

Preprocessing graphical objects...

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.150681

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 110.052755

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 134.595491

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 152.068190

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.055175

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 152.068190

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 110.052755

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.150681

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.055175

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 134.595491

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 110.052755

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.150681

continuing, cross fingers

Finding the ideal number of pages...

Fitting music on 1 page...

Drawing systems...

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 152.068190

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 110.052755

continuing, cross fingers

programming error: mis-predicted force, 108.120472 ~= 108.150681

continuing, cross fingers

Layout output to `./tmp-lilypond-xDJjia'...

Converting to `stanza-number-every-line-04.pdf'...

Deleting `./tmp-lilypond-xDJjia'...

Success: compilation successfully completed

Completed successfully in 28.1".


Attached best I currently can think of.

-Harm


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

Re: Remove staff in one particular section

[Urs Liska]

Am 7. Juli 2016 17:32:47 MESZ, schrieb Caio Giovaneti de Barros 
:
>Can I remove a staff in a single section? Like \removeEmptyStaves but 
>not for the whole score. In my case it is just for the last system.
>
>
>Sorry if this topic was already discussed, I searched the manuals and 
>archive but I'm in a bit of a hurry now to be honest.

\stopStaff ?

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

-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

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

Re: appoggiatura problem

[David Kastrup]

bb  writes:

> I tried to write a treble line and a bass line. The treble line has an
> appoggiatura at the beginning, the bass line has not. If you compile
> that attached snippet you will find the appoggiatura before the time
> definition. in the second measure/bar it is not.
>
> There is also a strange treble clef in front of the bassline - only in
> the short snippet I prepared for the derfinition of the question. In
> the much longer original lilypond document I am working on it is not?
>
> What is wrong with this??? I found no solution in my
> experiments. Thanks for any help!

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/special-rhythmic-concerns#index-grace_002dnote-synchronization>

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Remove staff in one particular section

[David Kastrup]

Caio Giovaneti de Barros  writes:

> Can I remove a staff in a single section? Like \removeEmptyStaves but
> not for the whole score. In my case it is just for the last system.
>
>
> Sorry if this topic was already discussed, I searched the manuals and
> archive but I'm in a bit of a hurry now to be honest.

I have no idea what "in a single section" is supposed to mean, in
particular in connection with "just for the last system".

-- 
David Kastrup

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

appoggiatura problem

[bb]

I tried to write a treble line and a bass line. The treble line has an 
appoggiatura at the beginning, the bass line has not. If you compile 
that attached snippet you will find the appoggiatura before the time 
definition. in the second measure/bar it is not.


There is also a strange treble clef in front of the bassline - only in 
the short snippet I prepared for the derfinition of the question. In the 
much longer original lilypond document I am working on it is not?


What is wrong with this??? I found no solution in my experiments. Thanks 
for any help!


Regards

%#

upper= { \relative c'' {

\clef treble

\key as \major

\time 2/4

\grace bes16 as8 as16 bes as8 g |

\grace { as16[( bes] } 4)

\grace { as16[( bes] } 4) \bar "||"

}}

lower={ \relative c {

\clef bass

\key as \major

\time 2/4

as8 as16 bes as8 g |

4

4 \bar "||"

}}

<<

\new Staff {\upper}

\new Staff {\lower}

>>

%#

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

Remove staff in one particular section

[Caio Giovaneti de Barros]

Can I remove a staff in a single section? Like \removeEmptyStaves but 
not for the whole score. In my case it is just for the last system.



Sorry if this topic was already discussed, I searched the manuals and 
archive but I'm in a bit of a hurry now to be honest.



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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 7 lug 2016 alle 9:52, Andrew Bernard 
 ha scritto:
On this topic, can we add ‘engraver’ as pdfengraver to have it in 
the custom PDF fields?


This is issue 3820:
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/3820/#e957


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

Re: Alla breve notation in Kyrie (2) from Bach's Hohe Messe

[Jean Brefort]

Le jeudi 07 juillet 2016 à 13:48 +0200, Jogchum Reitsma a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> In the second Kyrie from J.S. Bach's Hohe Messe, the time signature
> is 4/4, but the bars are filled with 8 quarter notes or its
> equivalent in time.
> I cannot find in the documentation or last years list archive how to
> code that in lilypond.
> 
> \set timeSignatureFraction = #'(2.2)
> 
> which maybe is the solution, gives the error
> 
> waarschuwing: typecontrole is mislukt voor 'timeSignatureFraction';
> waarde '(2.2)' moet van type 'fraction, as pair' zijn
> Translated: 
> 
> warning: typecontrol failed for 'timeSignatureFraction'; value
> '(2.2)' must be of type 'fraction, as pair'
> 
> Any idea how to code this?
> 

Hi,

In such case, I use something like:
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'stencil = #ly:text-interface::print
  \override Staff.TimeSignature #'text = \markup {\musicglyph #"timesig.C44"}
  \time 8/4

There might be better solution though

Regards,
Jean

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

Re: Alla breve notation in Kyrie (2) from Bach's Hohe Messe

[Malte Meyn]

Am 07.07.2016 um 13:48 schrieb Jogchum Reitsma:

In the second Kyrie from J.S. Bach's Hohe Messe, the time signature is
4/4, but the bars are filled with 8 quarter notes or its equivalent in
time.


Are you sure you meant 4/4 which is shown as C? Bach uses the cut C 
(alla breve).



\set timeSignatureFraction = #'(2.2)

warning: typecontrol failed for 'timeSignatureFraction'; value '(2.2)'
must be of type 'fraction, as pair'


Pairs have to be written with spaces around the dot, so it would be
  \set timeSignatureFraction = #'(2 . 2)
or simpler (using a fraction)
  \set timeSignatureFraction = 2/2
#'(2.2) is a list containing the number 2.2 as a single element.

There are three solutions to your problem, I would prefer the second (or 
maybe the third).




\version "2.18.2"

% first solution: use 2/2 and adjust measure length
{
  \time 2/2
  \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4/2)
  a2 a a a
}

% second solution: use 4/2 and adjust the fraction/alla breve sign
{
  \time 4/2
  \set Staff.timeSignatureFraction = 2/2
  a2 a a a
}

% third solution: set both measureLength and timeSignatureFraction
% without overriding settings made by the \time command (IMO cleaner)
{
  \set Timing.measureLength = #(ly:make-moment 4/2)
  \set Staff.timeSignatureFraction = 2/2
  a2 a a a
}

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

Alla breve notation in Kyrie (2) from Bach's Hohe Messe

[Jogchum Reitsma]

Hi all,

In the second Kyrie from J.S. Bach's Hohe Messe, the time signature is 
4/4, but the bars are filled with 8 quarter notes or its equivalent in time.
I cannot find in the documentation or last years list archive how to 
code that in lilypond.


\set timeSignatureFraction = #'(2.2)

which maybe is the solution, gives the error

waarschuwing: typecontrole is mislukt voor 'timeSignatureFraction'; 
waarde '(2.2)' moet van type 'fraction, as pair' zijn



Translated:

warning: typecontrol failed for 'timeSignatureFraction'; value '(2.2)' 
must be of type 'fraction, as pair'


Any idea how to code this?


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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Anthony Youngman]

On 07/07/16 08:38, Christopher R. Maden wrote:

On 07/07/2016 02:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

Federico Bruni  writes:

Who should be in your opinion the author of a LilyPond score PDF? The
composer or the typesetter?


Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a standard.
The PDF standard states:

Key  TypeValue
Author   text string (Optional) The name of the person who 
created the document.


“[T]he person who created the document” is extremely ambiguous. Is 
“the document” the composition, the score, the arrangement... ?  The 
philosophers with whom I work can (and do!) spend years debating these 
things.


None of those. The document is the computer file. If I hit "new" in MS 
Word, it is my name that gets plonked in the "author" field of *that* 
document. The fact that I *may* be copying *another* document is 
irrelevant - what I am copying is something else - a different document. 
I created the current document, I am the author. (Unfortunately, the 
word author implies creativity, but then, they did create the document :-)


The shortest realistic answer is that whoever creates the PDF decides 
who the “author” of that PDF is; if they don’t care enough to credit 
someone else, then it’s them, or no one at all.


Sounds like they should have used the word "scribe", not "author". Only 
snag is, they would then have had people asking "what is a scribe?". But 
think of a shaman dictating a story to a western collector. The shaman 
is the story-teller, the westerner (the scribe) is the author of the book.


Cheers,
Wol

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 7 lug 2016 alle 11:41, David Kastrup  ha 
scritto:

Federico Bruni  writes:


 Il giorno gio 7 lug 2016 alle 9:23, David Kastrup  ha
 scritto:

 Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a
 standard.
 The PDF standard states:


 Where did you take this?


PDF reference manual downloaded from Adobe web page 8 years ago.  
Might
be worth looking for a newer version if they still have it there (I 
seem

to remember that I had a problem finding the PLRM, the respective
document for PostScript, at one point of time in spite of having
downloaded it there once before).


from:
http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/devnet/pdf/pdfs/adobe_supplement_iso32000_1.pdf
same list on page 550




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

Re: PDF author metadata

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni  writes:

> Il giorno gio 7 lug 2016 alle 9:23, David Kastrup  ha
> scritto:
>> Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a
>> standard.
>> The PDF standard states:
>
> Where did you take this?

PDF reference manual downloaded from Adobe web page 8 years ago.  Might
be worth looking for a newer version if they still have it there (I seem
to remember that I had a problem finding the PLRM, the respective
document for PostScript, at one point of time in spite of having
downloaded it there once before).

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Federico Bruni]

Il giorno gio 7 lug 2016 alle 9:23, David Kastrup  ha 
scritto:
Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a 
standard.

The PDF standard states:


Where did you take this?



Key  TypeValue
Titletext string (Optional; PDF 1.1) The document’s title.
Author   text string (Optional) The name of the person who 
created the document.
Subject  text string (Optional; PDF 1.1) The subject of the 
document.
Keywords text string (Optional; PDF 1.1) Keywords associated with 
the document.
Creator  text string (Optional) If the document was converted to 
PDF from another format,
 the name of the conforming product that 
created the original document

 from which it was converted.
Producer text string (Optional) If the document was converted to 
PDF from another format,
 the name of the conforming product that 
converted it to PDF.
CreationDate date(Optional) The date and time the document 
was created, in human-

 readable form (see 7.9.4, “Dates”).
ModDate  date(Required if PieceInfo is present in the 
document catalogue;
 otherwise optional; PDF 1.1) The date and 
time the document was
 most recently modified, in human-readable 
form (see 7.9.4, “Dates”).

Trapped  name(Optional; PDF 1.3) [...]


The standard does not take into account that the author of the document 
might be different from the author of the __content__ in the document?


What's more relevant when you search a document? The person who created 
the document in a computer or the author of the content of the 
document? Most of times it's the latter. If I have a library of ebooks 
and search an author name, I want to find the real author of the books, 
not the publisher name or whoever created the ebook.





 The advantage of an application such as Gnome Documents is that you
 can quickly access a PDF score without having to browse through
 folders in the file manager.


Still no point in ignoring the standard.


I see, in the documentation we should not recommend using PDF metadata 
in a way deviating from the standard. Even though the interpretation of 
Author is ambiguous, as Chris and Andrew said.





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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Andrew Bernard]

This may be the standard, but it is woefully ambiguous, and text-centric.
In the case of a music composition, is is the composer or the engraver? Is
the ‘document’ the music, or the setting of it?

Setting Author to the name of the composer does not make it clear to
anybody who the composer is. These PDF standards may be iron clad rulings,
but they are not well thought out for non-text works.

On this topic, can we add ‘engraver’ as pdfengraver to have it in the
custom PDF fields?

Andrew

On 7 July 2016 at 5:24:44 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

Author text string (Optional) The name of the person who created the
document.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: PDF author metadata

[Andrew Bernard]

Oops. It would help if I paid closed attention to what I am doing. I was
putting the custom PDF fields in the paper block, not the header block
(lilypond keeps quite about this).

Ignore the noise, and apologies.

Andrew



On 7 July 2016 at 5:25:49 PM, Andrew Bernard (andrew.bern...@gmail.com)
wrote:

Hi Federico,

How does one view the additional PDF metadata such as created by
‘pdfcomposer’ in the header in Linux? Indeed, I cannot see this in Adobe
Acrobat Pro DC (on Mac) either? Where is it stored and how to display it?

Currently using 2.19.44 to try this out.

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Christopher R. Maden]

On 07/07/2016 02:23 AM, David Kastrup wrote:

Federico Bruni  writes:

Who should be in your opinion the author of a LilyPond score PDF? The
composer or the typesetter?


Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a standard.
The PDF standard states:

Key  TypeValue
Author   text string (Optional) The name of the person who created the 
document.


“[T]he person who created the document” is extremely ambiguous.  Is “the 
document” the composition, the score, the arrangement... ?  The 
philosophers with whom I work can (and do!) spend years debating these 
things.


The shortest realistic answer is that whoever creates the PDF decides 
who the “author” of that PDF is; if they don’t care enough to credit 
someone else, then it’s them, or no one at all.


~Chris
--
Chris Maden, text nerd  http://crism.maden.org/ >
“If you’ve been a man o’ action, though you’re lying there in traction,
 You will gain some satisfaction thinkin’, ‘Jesus, at least I tried.’”
  — Andy M. Stewart (1952–2015), “Ramblin’ Rover”

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[Andrew Bernard]

Hi Federico,

How does one view the additional PDF metadata such as created by
‘pdfcomposer’ in the header in Linux? Indeed, I cannot see this in Adobe
Acrobat Pro DC (on Mac) either? Where is it stored and how to display it?

Currently using 2.19.44 to try this out.

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

Re: PDF author metadata

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni  writes:

> Hi all
>
> I'd like to edit this page of the documentation:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/creating-pdf-metadata.html
>
> to add what I learned here:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2016-07/msg8.html
>
> I have another question on this subject.
> Who should be in your opinion the author of a LilyPond score PDF? The
> composer or the typesetter?
> Of course the answer depends on the use case.
> In my opinion having the composer (or arranger) as author is more
> useful, because you can filter the scores in your hard disk by author
> metadata if you use a document management software (such as Gnome
> Documents in Linux).

Usefulness does not come into play here as long as there is a standard.
The PDF standard states:

Key  TypeValue
Titletext string (Optional; PDF 1.1) The document’s title.
Author   text string (Optional) The name of the person who created the 
document.
Subject  text string (Optional; PDF 1.1) The subject of the document.
Keywords text string (Optional; PDF 1.1) Keywords associated with the 
document.
Creator  text string (Optional) If the document was converted to PDF from 
another format,
 the name of the conforming product that created the 
original document
 from which it was converted.
Producer text string (Optional) If the document was converted to PDF from 
another format,
 the name of the conforming product that converted it 
to PDF.
CreationDate date(Optional) The date and time the document was created, 
in human-
 readable form (see 7.9.4, “Dates”).
ModDate  date(Required if PieceInfo is present in the document 
catalogue;
 otherwise optional; PDF 1.1) The date and time the 
document was
 most recently modified, in human-readable form (see 
7.9.4, “Dates”).
Trapped  name(Optional; PDF 1.3) [...]

> The advantage of an application such as Gnome Documents is that you
> can quickly access a PDF score without having to browse through
> folders in the file manager.

Still no point in ignoring the standard.

-- 
David Kastrup

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