Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 05.04.2016 12:42, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 05.04.2016 11:55, David Kastrup wrote:

That is because many people who get a go at LilyPond (such as me) are
not programmers, but musicians with little background knowledge about
or experience with programming.

Well, you seem to be faring pretty well.


Oh, thank you. All I learnt was through working with LilyPond, and 
through you folks on the lists :-)


I confused ‘doing well’ and ‘faring well’ here, so the answer should 
rather have read: “It took me some years of reading (LilyPond and Guile) 
manuals and following the lists and a lot of trial and error till I got 
to terms with some of the programming aspects in LilyPond (i.e. mainly 
Guile).”


Best, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 05.04.2016 11:55, David Kastrup wrote:

That is because many people who get a go at LilyPond (such as me) are
not programmers, but musicians with little background knowledge about
or experience with programming.

Well, you seem to be faring pretty well.


Oh, thank you. All I learnt was through working with LilyPond, and 
through you folks on the lists :-)


Best, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 04-04-16 23:58, David Sumbler wrote:


I have been using Lilypond for a few years now (but admittedly there are
always periods of weeks or months at a time when I haven't touched it,
which of course makes things much more difficult to retain).

I still find the whole thing rather cryptic, and I do think that
Bernard's remark about Godolvsky errors is perceptive and relevant.  A
few of the replies that have been given imply that things are pretty
obvious when, for some, they simply are not.  When one is very familiar
with and well-immersed in a subject, it is often hard or impossible to
understand what another intelligent person finds so obscure or difficult
about it.





Hi David and others,

Thanks for your understanding.

I wanted to stop. It took to much time for me with to less results.

But the overwhelming responses made me doubt. You all spend a lot of 
time to help me, and even responded when I decided to quite using Lilypond.


In general your response was positive and constructive.

The code suggestions I got mostly just worked. But then I wanted to 
alter a minor item (I thought) and that influenced the code. I did not 
get grip on Lilypond.
What I do is not wanting ask you for every detail. That takes to much of 
your and mine time.


That said I still have positive feelings about Lilypond and this 
usersgroup.


I have read all your replies. But did not check the given examples. I 
lost the feeling it could solve my problem, especially when if I made a 
minor change into those examples.


My remarks :
The Coldosky error is an important error. That knowledge control the way 
I want to work. It is a feed back mechanism.


Playing African music like Djembe is a not written music. So everything 
has to be done from the start.

Without the basic experience with other instruments and music notation.

In the exceptional case someone does write Africa Djembe music down, it 
is very slovenly. But it written down by a Djembe teacher who can play 
Djembe well, and as student you can not play well. So the teacher is all 
ways right, even is he is wrong.
The only way to check this Coldosky error to generate Djembe sound using 
midi and a Djembe soundfont. It the music is written down with an a 
wrong note, the sound will be improper, and the teacher will hear this 
himself. So there is a feedback to improve quality.

Knowing the existence of the Coldosky error, can help to prevent it.
With this feedback the note's can be written down as it should be, and 
it can be used to play from.


An other problem are those, whole playing Djembe, are amateurs, who turn 
their head away for something which looks like written music. So if 
music is written down, it should be as easy as possible. Realy, realy 
easy. Do not under estimate the fear for written music. It is to complex 
for them, they feel, to understand.
The next thing when practise, the midi sound can be played for exercise 
in a very low tempo. And slowly increasing when there is more 
experience. When even further you can let the sound of others Djembe 
play with midi, and play your own track yourself.

Ideal for practice.
Midi supports, and associated programs, like f.e. LMMS, does support 
this all. It is just important to generate the correct midi file, with 
Lilypond.


That was the reason for a special Djembe notation, which is possible in 
Lilypond. It is no luxery, just a requirement to be used. To learn to 
play Djembe.
In the same time it can be a help to prevent the loss of some African 
music, just because the fact it is not written down. The African youth 
does not play the original rhythms any more.


This background is important to understand my choices.

Some replies on the response :
Goldosky error is important here, as a similarity. If you read that 
careful you often have implicit knowledge, of which you are surprised 
the other does not have that knowledge. Only the mistake made by the 
other might be an indication there is some implicit knowledge involved.


I do not want to be be an advanced Lilypond user. I just want to use it. 
And when ready only the note's of a different rhythm changes.


Noeck gave me the syntax of a statement. I really did like that. That 
gave me much information.


Johannes Waldman mention the mental modal. Lilypond is no Object 
orientation programming but a functional language. Nothing wrong with 
that, but very important to know. That interpretation is important to 
get an idea of the code.


As said, you, David Sumbler did understood the Coldosky error. You 
suggested to improve the manual with a Lilypond specialist. I would add 
to this, only together with a newbie, again to prevent to Coldosky 
error. Just an HTML page(s) with a statement. And with that statement a 
hyper link to dig into that statement for details. With syntax (for 
programmers) with example working code, AND with example mistakes. And 
why this is a mistake. If a mistake is often made in this newsgroup it 
can be added. And so 

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht  writes:

> On 04.04.2016 22:19, Johannes Waldmann wrote:
>> The docs do make considerable effort to explain, e.g.,
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-and-engravers
>>   .
>> If at all, I might criticize this for being in the wrong order:
>> 2. Common Notation, 3. Fundamental Concepts - but how can we
>> use or learn a language (syntax, notation) without knowing
>> its underlying semantical model first?
>
> That is because many people who get a go at LilyPond (such as me) are
> not programmers, but musicians with little background knowledge about
> or experience with programming.

Well, you seem to be faring pretty well.

> It seems that a majority of LilyPond users are either music
> professionals with a knack for logics and programming, or (active or
> retired) programmers who are hobby musicians. It’s hard to satisfy
> both at once.

Not really, but improvements for one are often not tangible benefits for
the other, at least initially.

Matching both targets is the art of program design.  That's a modern
form of counterpoint.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

David Sumbler  writes:

> I have been using Lilypond for a few years now (but admittedly there
> are always periods of weeks or months at a time when I haven't touched
> it, which of course makes things much more difficult to retain).
>
> I still find the whole thing rather cryptic,

It's not cryptic as much as complex.  Scheme is an integral part of
LilyPond's user interface, and Scheme is a general-purpose programming
language that's not particularly cherished even among programmers,
partially because its single-minded use of punctuation (parens are
basically all there is) does not really match the way in which we
structure natural text in modern Western languages (the ancient Greek
would likely have found little wrong in just running everything together
in one block).

If you are not on top of the underlying complexity, you need to follow
instructions and recipes and conventions.  There is nothing wrong with
that, but the more complexity and exceptions bleed into the recipes, and
the less those recipes appear to follow a pattern, the harder it becomes
to be comfortable working with the system.

The main question people ask themselves is "what's in it for me?".  And
what's in it is that LilyPond is very flexible in the things it can be
made to solve automatically.

This pays off in the form of people being able to _help_ others like on
this mailing list.  But also in the form of prepackaged functionality.

> I myself have even had thoughts lately of cutting my losses,
> installing a DOS emulator and going back to using Score!  I can't
> remember much about how Score is used, but I do remember that I
> published quite a number of arrangements and compositions in the late
> '90s using Score, and that getting to grips with it was a fraction of
> the effort I have needed (and still need) to understand how to do
> things in Lilypond.  Yet Score's output is commonly regarded still as
> pretty much first-rate.

Doing things like piano extracts and partiture and transpositions from
the same sources (but, for example, employing different accidental
styles) is going to be more trouble, I'd guess.  LilyPond talks more
about the music itself rather than the typesetting of it.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

David Wright  writes:

> It's interesting to compare this structure with NM5.1.1 where \score
> is the topmost context and StaffGroups are "top-level" contexts.
>
> And why book, score and not Book, Score?

You mean \book and \score.  Because those are elements of LilyPond's
syntax, not context names.

> And why not \new Score?

There is nothing wrong with \new Score but it's not more than an
(intermediate) context.  If you want to use it with \with, you'll
actually write it.  If you want to spell out implied contexts, you are
free to write something like

\score {
  \context Global
 \new Score
\new Staff
   \new Voice {
  c' d' e' f'
   }
}

> And, if you actually *do* write \new Score, why does the parser object
> to its \layout command; but if you now delete the \layout command,
> why does the parser not object to \new Score any more?

Because you are free to write any music at top level, including \new
Whatever.  But that does not magically change the syntax or allow
\layout to be inserted into music.  Just because some context is named
Score does not make it special syntactically.  The Global context _is_
special semantically in that it gets created whenever music is
interpreted (whether explicitly wrapped in \score or not).  But pretty
much anything else is a consequence of the context hierarchies defined
in ly/engraver-init.ly.

> Does LP have any display functions? (I mean like \the in TeX.)
> For example, if mus = { a b c d }, I can render it and read the
> music from the score, but how would I type\mus
> and get
> => { a b c d }
> displayed in the LP output stream? Or how about
>  LyricText.font-size
> => -3
>  LyricText
> font-size => -3 font-shape => 'italic ... etc.
>
> I'm almost reluctant to ask a question like this,
> having recently reread the thread starting at
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00700.html

Take a look at \displayMusic, \displayLilyMusic, \displayScheme.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Wright]

On Tue 05 Apr 2016 at 01:04:40 (+0200), Thomas Morley wrote:
> 2016-04-04 23:58 GMT+02:00 David Sumbler :
> >
> > Just a thought - perhaps one day somebody who understands Lilypond well
> > might write a section for the docs, starting with the basic
> 
> Well, the full quote:
> 
> LilyPond treats input like this:
> 
> \relative {
>   c''4 a d c
> }
> 
> as shorthand for this:
> > \book {
> >   \score {
> > \new Staff {
> >   \new Voice {
> > \relative {
> >   c''4 a b c
> > }
> >   }
> > }
> > \layout { }
> >   }
> > }
> > structure shown in LM3.1.1 (what happened to \bookpart I wonder)

... and StaffGroup.

It's interesting to compare this structure with NM5.1.1 where \score
is the topmost context and StaffGroups are "top-level" contexts.

And why book, score and not Book, Score? And why not \new Score?

And, if you actually *do* write \new Score, why does the parser object
to its \layout command; but if you now delete the \layout command,
why does the parser not object to \new Score any more?

> The example shows how LilyPond treats the input.
> 
> If you do:
> 
> bk =
> \book {
>   \score {
> \new Staff {
>   \new Voice {
> \relative {
>   c''4 a b c
> }
>   }
> }
> \layout { }
>   }
> }

If LilyPond had an IDE, it might well start off with something looking
rather like that. Pressing, say, F1 at any point might give you
suggestions as to what could appear there.
Kind of syntax highlighting on steroids.

> #(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bk))
> #(write-me "book-parts present: " (ly:book-book-parts bk))
> 
> You'll se that _no_ bookparts are created. So the example _is_ complete.
> Why mention bookpart if not present, same for other stuff like
> ChoirStaff, ChordNames, DrumVoice, etc, etc
> 
> Btw, bookparts _are_ books. See:
> bkprt =
> \bookpart { \score { \new Staff { cisis'1 } } }
> 
> #(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bkprt))
> 
> They are differently treated, though...
> 
> 
> In general I think we would do our users a favor to emphasize the
> recommendation to use the various display-functions more prominently.
> 
> I do it all the time, sometimes writing special ones, like earlier in
> this thread.
> If I don't understand things, I first display them, always, sometimes
> every little detail...
> Works great form me.

Does LP have any display functions? (I mean like \the in TeX.)
For example, if mus = { a b c d }, I can render it and read the
music from the score, but how would I type\mus
and get
=> { a b c d }
displayed in the LP output stream? Or how about
 LyricText.font-size
=> -3
 LyricText
font-size => -3 font-shape => 'italic ... etc.

I'm almost reluctant to ask a question like this,
having recently reread the thread starting at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-02/msg00700.html

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Thomas Morley]

2016-04-04 23:58 GMT+02:00 David Sumbler :
>
> Just a thought - perhaps one day somebody who understands Lilypond well
> might write a section for the docs, starting with the basic

Well, the full quote:

LilyPond treats input like this:

\relative {
  c''4 a d c
}

as shorthand for this:
> \book {
>   \score {
> \new Staff {
>   \new Voice {
> \relative {
>   c''4 a b c
> }
>   }
> }
> \layout { }
>   }
> }
> structure shown in LM3.1.1 (what happened to \bookpart I wonder)

The example shows how LilyPond treats the input.

If you do:

bk =
\book {
  \score {
\new Staff {
  \new Voice {
\relative {
  c''4 a b c
}
  }
}
\layout { }
  }
}

#(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bk))
#(write-me "book-parts present: " (ly:book-book-parts bk))

You'll se that _no_ bookparts are created. So the example _is_ complete.
Why mention bookpart if not present, same for other stuff like
ChoirStaff, ChordNames, DrumVoice, etc, etc

Btw, bookparts _are_ books. See:
bkprt =
\bookpart { \score { \new Staff { cisis'1 } } }

#(write-me "book? " (ly:book? bkprt))

They are differently treated, though...


In general I think we would do our users a favor to emphasize the
recommendation to use the various display-functions more prominently.

I do it all the time, sometimes writing special ones, like earlier in
this thread.
If I don't understand things, I first display them, always, sometimes
every little detail...
Works great form me.

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Wright]

On Mon 04 Apr 2016 at 12:46:37 (+0200), Bernard wrote:
> On 03-04-16 22:56, David Kastrup wrote:
> >Bernard  writes:
> >>That does help. I found out \with is a very special statement.
> >Not really.  \with can be part of other constructs, just like "else" can
> >be part of other constructs in many programming languages (including
> >Scheme).  It is not a "statement" at all.
> That does help a lot. Now I understand why there can not be anything
> before /with.
> >
> >>It influence what happens before the statement, it must be executed
> >>just after \new . That is the reason why my examples 4 and 5 did not
> >>work.
> >>And it influence what happens after the statement. If within the Staff
> >>not a additional Staff property can be set.
> >>
> >>No wonder it confuses me.
> >\with introduces "context modifications".  They are basic expressions in
> >that they can be stored in variables and passed to functions, but to
> >take effect, they need to be applied to an actually created context, and
> >there are various syntactic constructs for doing that.
> >
> >They "influence what happens after the statement" like any modification
> >to anything.  Their influence is restricted to contexts they are applied
> >to (possibly via layout or context definitions or wrapped into other
> >context modifications).
> >
> I still do not get it all. By the way, I am my self a Python
> programmer and object orientation in known to me.

[...]

Your example is incomprehensible to me as I've never used drum mode.
It's also large enough to obfuscate the problem.

Simplifying the code:

%%

mus = { e' f' g' a' }

\markup { with section }
\score { \new Staff \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red } \mus }

\markup { with section }
\score { \new Staff \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red } { e' f' g' a' } }

%% That worked. The \with { xxx } modified the music.
%% Then you took out the \with so the { xxx } now becomes the music.
%% (Music expressions can include context modifications as well as notes.)

%% Think of python's positional parameters and keyword parameters.
%% You start with ( keyword=argument, parm ) but you remove "keyword="
%% so you're left with ( argument, parm ) and "argument" becomes a
%% positional parameter instead.

%% In LilyPond, the "first positional parameter" is the music.
%% Most LilyPond elements consist of either   \element SINGLE-value
%% or   \element { SINGLE arbitrarily complicated expression }
%% and not   \element { argument } { parm }
%% So LilyPond does not allow a "second positional parameter".

\markup { without the use of the with section }
%% generate error
\score { \new Staff { \override NoteHead.color = #red } \mus }

\markup { without the use of the with section }
%% generate error
\score { \new Staff { \override NoteHead.color = #red } { e' f' g' a' } }

%% Your music now becomes treated as illegal source code because
%% it's syntactically a "second positional parameter".
%% However, if you move the music in with the "first positional parameter":

\markup { without the use of the with section }
\score { \new Staff { \override NoteHead.color = #red \mus } }

\markup { without the use of the with section }
\score { \new Staff { \override NoteHead.color = #red e' f' g' a' } }

\markup { without the use of the with section }
\score { \new Staff { e' f' \override NoteHead.color = #red g' a' } }

%%

If you really want a python example; when you
"skipped the   with   section" by deleting "\with"
what you did was like changing:

with fileinput.input(args, mode='rb') as theinput:
  for bytestring in theinput:
nbytesscanned += len(bytestring)
linenum += 1
for k in bytestring:
  maxchar = max(maxchar, k)
  if k not in firsts: firsts[k] = linenum
  counts[k] = counts.setdefault(k,0) + 1

into:

fileinput.input(args, mode='rb') as theinput:
  for bytestring in theinput:
nbytesscanned += len(bytestring)
linenum += 1
for k in bytestring:
  maxchar = max(maxchar, k)
  if k not in firsts: firsts[k] = linenum
  counts[k] = counts.setdefault(k,0) + 1

Python now has no idea what to do with the word "as".

Cheers,
David.

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.04.2016 22:19, Johannes Waldmann wrote:

The docs do make considerable effort to explain, e.g.,
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-and-engravers
  .
If at all, I might criticize this for being in the wrong order:
2. Common Notation, 3. Fundamental Concepts - but how can we
use or learn a language (syntax, notation) without knowing
its underlying semantical model first?


That is because many people who get a go at LilyPond (such as me) are 
not programmers, but musicians with little background knowledge about or 
experience with programming.
It seems that a majority of LilyPond users are either music 
professionals with a knack for logics and programming, or (active or 
retired) programmers who are hobby musicians. It’s hard to satisfy both 
at once.


Yours, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Sumbler]

On Mon, 2016-04-04 at 16:12 -0400, lilypond-user-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
> > From: Noeck <noeck.marb...@gmx.de>
> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with
> > statement
> > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 22:11:51 +0200
> > 
> > Would the table in the previous mail be helpful for the docs here?
> > http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/overview-of-modifying-properties
> > 
> > I could write it and some text around it if there is a general feeling
> > that it would help.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Joram

I think it would help.

I have followed this thread with great interest: I have a lot of
sympathy with Bernard.

I have been using Lilypond for a few years now (but admittedly there are
always periods of weeks or months at a time when I haven't touched it,
which of course makes things much more difficult to retain).

I still find the whole thing rather cryptic, and I do think that
Bernard's remark about Godolvsky errors is perceptive and relevant.  A
few of the replies that have been given imply that things are pretty
obvious when, for some, they simply are not.  When one is very familiar
with and well-immersed in a subject, it is often hard or impossible to
understand what another intelligent person finds so obscure or difficult
about it.

I myself have even had thoughts lately of cutting my losses, installing
a DOS emulator and going back to using Score!  I can't remember much
about how Score is used, but I do remember that I published quite a
number of arrangements and compositions in the late '90s using Score,
and that getting to grips with it was a fraction of the effort I have
needed (and still need) to understand how to do things in Lilypond.  Yet
Score's output is commonly regarded still as pretty much first-rate.

Of course, different people have different learning styles, and for me I
think that part of the problem with Lilypond is that there is no very
clear, organized "bottom-up" description of how it works and how to use
it.  Like Bernard, I suspect, I would probably have had more success in
getting to grips with Lilypond if I had had a more thorough grounding in
the fundamentals at the very start.  I'm the sort of person who finds
that modern (human)-language-teaching methods leave me stranded very
quickly: I need to learn the present tense of the verb "to be" and the
principles of the orthography of a language at the very beginning.

Just a thought - perhaps one day somebody who understands Lilypond well
might write a section for the docs, starting with the basic
\book {
  \score {
\new Staff {
  \new Voice {
\relative {
  c''4 a b c
}
  }
}
\layout { }
  }
}
structure shown in LM3.1.1 (what happened to \bookpart I wonder) and
gradually expanding that, as well as showing how and when some elements
can be omitted.  The different ways of changing context and object
properties could be detailed as well.

David


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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Colin Campbell  writes:

> On 16-04-04 02:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Noeck  writes:
>>
>>> … and enjoy your climbing! I hope I don't produce much more
>>> misinformation until you are safely back ;)
>> Uh, I'm already back.  I'm only enjoying the open spots on my fingertips
>> now.  They'll close up in the next few days, and in 10 days or so the
>> fingers (mostly) will start peeling.
>>
>
> You certainly seem to carry your scale exercises to new heights,
> although I would have thought you more interested in the classical
> repertoire than rock.

The Classics actually don't do much for me, particularly not the
Symphonic Classics.  I'm mostly uninterested in stuff later than Baroque
until something like mid-20th century.  I'm currently working on
Piazzolla, but if you look closely, that's actually counterpoint.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Colin Campbell]

On 16-04-04 02:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:

Noeck  writes:


… and enjoy your climbing! I hope I don't produce much more
misinformation until you are safely back ;)

Uh, I'm already back.  I'm only enjoying the open spots on my fingertips
now.  They'll close up in the next few days, and in 10 days or so the
fingers (mostly) will start peeling.



You certainly seem to carry your scale exercises to new heights, 
although I would have thought you more interested in the classical 
repertoire than rock.


Cheers,
Colin

--
One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly 
making exciting discoveries.

 - A. A. Milne, From the Daryl R. Gibson collection

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Noeck  writes:

> … and enjoy your climbing! I hope I don't produce much more
> misinformation until you are safely back ;)

Uh, I'm already back.  I'm only enjoying the open spots on my fingertips
now.  They'll close up in the next few days, and in 10 days or so the
fingers (mostly) will start peeling.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Noeck]

… and enjoy your climbing! I hope I don't produce much more
misinformation until you are safely back ;)

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Noeck]

Hi David,

On 04.04.2016 22:22, David Kastrup wrote:
> Noeck  writes:
> 
>> Alternatively, you can put this into a layout block:
>>
>> \layout {
>>   \context {
>> \Staff
>> clefPosition = 2
>>   }
>> }
>> %or
>> \layout {
>>   \set Staff.clefPosition = 2
>> }
> 
> This is not the same.  

I know. I wanted to keep it as short as possible, but you are right, it
is worth mentioning.


>> in layout block (variant 1):
>> \layout { \context { \Ctx   | \layout { \context { \Ctx
>>   prop = val }  |   \override obj.prop = val }

btw: } missing here

>> in layout block (variant 2):
>> \layout { \set Ctx.prop = val } | \layout{\override Ctx.obj.prop = val }
> 
> That's not a variant but something quite more encompassing.

Well, obviously, the docs did not help to find the most important
answers first in this particular case/thread. That's why I tried to
summarize what I consider minimal knowledge for property tweaking. Not
providing the full picture but only the "most important" parts, is
always dangerous. But my aim was not to replacate several chapters of
the manual but rather a practical concise form which is not found in the
manual. I still think that conciseness is a value in itself (it is a
fine line, though).

Back to the table, I probably should have omitted 'variant 2' as it is
indeed a bit dangerous until one knows what happens.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Noeck  writes:

> Alternatively, you can put this into a layout block:
>
> \layout {
>   \context {
> \Staff
> clefPosition = 2
>   }
> }
> %or
> \layout {
>   \set Staff.clefPosition = 2
> }

This is not the same.  The first affects only the "Staff" context
definition.  The second also affects _all_ contexts aliased to "Staff",
namely "TabStaff" and "DrumStaff" and "RhythmicStaff" and "FretBoards"
and "ChordNames" and "Devnull" and "NullVoice" (!) and "VaticanaStaff"
and "GregorianTranscriptionStaff" and "MensuralStaff" and
"PetrucciStaff" and "KievanStaff".

For most of those, you would _not_ want to change their default
clefPosition.

Putting \set/\override straight into a \layout definition has more
thorough effects than in a particular context definition.  Sometimes,
that's what you want.

Often, it's not.

> in with block:
> \with { prop = val }| \with { \override Ctx.obj.prop = val }
>
> in layout block (variant 1):
> \layout { \context { \Ctx   | \layout { \context { \Ctx
>   prop = val }  |   \override obj.prop = val }
>
> in layout block (variant 2):
> \layout { \set Ctx.prop = val } | \layout{\override Ctx.obj.prop = val }

That's not a variant but something quite more encompassing.  Note that
"Ctx." can be left off in which case "Bottom." is implied as usual.
Since "Bottom." is only ever an alias, addressing only the named context
would confuse people if they use something like "\omit Accidental" in
the expectation that it would omit accidentals.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Johannes Waldmann]

interesting discussion!

> My ultimate question boils down to how to assign
> a value to a property. That should not even be a question.

That ("should not be a question") depends on the mental model.
Why do you assume that a property is assignable, or in fact
that a (sub)program should consist of (state-changing) statements?
I guess because of your OO programming background (you mentioned it).
But in (pure) functional programming, there are no assignments
(no state) at all, and that happens to be my preferred mental model.

This is not a question of right or wrong -
history shows that both models are useful.
The question is to convey to the user
the model that was used in the design of the language/system.
You described this as "making implicit knowledge explicit".

The docs do make considerable effort to explain, e.g.,
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-and-engravers
 .
If at all, I might criticize this for being in the wrong order:
2. Common Notation, 3. Fundamental Concepts - but how can we
use or learn a language (syntax, notation) without knowing
its underlying semantical model first?

E.g., my lilypond learning problem (I think)
is to find out how much of lilypond is pure data
(music as an expressions, nested by sequential and parallel composition)
and how much is procedural (music as execution of events,
that is, of statements)
and when and how to switch between these models (if at all).

- J.

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Noeck]

Would the table in the previous mail be helpful for the docs here?
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/overview-of-modifying-properties

I could write it and some text around it if there is a general feeling
that it would help.

Cheers,
Joram

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Noeck]

Hi Bernard,

I would like to try and explain it in other words as the manual:

music with implicit voice and staff:
{ c' }

music with explicit staff and implicit voice:
\new Staff { c' }

adding a with statement:
\new Staff \with { clefPosition = 2 } { c' }

Please note here: There must be no { after Staff, because that would
start a music expression. The braces are not just for grouping things
but they start a music expression and \with must come before the music
starts. Think of it as a function, if the first argument starts with {
it is music and not a \with block:

\new Staff   \with { clefPosition = 2 } { c' }
^^   ^^ ^^
function optional argument (not music)  music

Alternatively, you can put this into a layout block:

\layout {
  \context {
\Staff
clefPosition = 2
  }
}
%or
\layout {
  \set Staff.clefPosition = 2
}



## Contexts and objects

Contexts are different from graphical objects and their properties
(prop) are changed differently (explained in the docs). Just a summary
here (val means value):

contexts (Staff, Voice, …) Ctx  |  graphical objects (Clef, …) obj
---
in music:
{ \set Ctx.prop = val } | { \override Ctx.obj.prop = val }

in with block:
\with { prop = val }| \with { \override Ctx.obj.prop = val }

in layout block (variant 1):
\layout { \context { \Ctx   | \layout { \context { \Ctx
  prop = val }  |   \override obj.prop = val }

in layout block (variant 2):
\layout { \set Ctx.prop = val } | \layout{\override Ctx.obj.prop = val }


td;dr: (1) be careful with {}
   (2) read the input as functions with some optional arguments
   (3) context properties and object properties are different

HTH,
Joram


PS: I know you said you won't try any longer, but perhaps this will help
someone.

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.04.2016 21:54, David Kastrup wrote:

The only "inconsistency" I am able to see is that context modifications
(like context definitions) omit a context name for their sets/overrides,
and that they use assignment syntax without \set unlike to how context
properties are set inside of actual music.  The first is rather obvious
(how could a context modification apply to anything but the respective
context itself?).  The second is kind of a wart due to a mixture of
historical and technical reasons.


Why a wart? It’s neither ugly nor a nuisance, quite the opposite.

Yours, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Bernard  writes:

> On 04-04-16 18:35, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Bernard  writes:
>>
>>>
>>> I think I am getting quite close now. Thanks,
>> I have no idea what you think you are doing but I have severe doubts
>> that you are getting close to anything useful.  It looks to me like you
>> are just randomly putting syntactic entities into a bag and shake.
>>
>> Have you read through the Learning Manual?  It should tell you how
>> LilyPond organizes its input.
>
> Thanks David and others, but I give up.
> For your info I did read the manual, much more then I wanted to.
> My ultimate question boils down to how to assign a value to a
> property. That should not even be a question.

With \set / \override, and you actually had working code doing just
that.  For some properties, it might make sense to set them right at the
creation of a context rather than afterwards (like instrument names or
number of staff lines).  For those you use context modifications spelled
with \with which may contain assignments or \override inside.

If you just had followed the code examples given for setting properties
in the manual, all would have worked fine.

> Lilypond advertise itself being easy, and it is.
> {c'} does create output.
> Even a bit more complex examples are made.
> This because code is generated implicit. But at the same time it hides
> what is behind, creating confusing.

> You have implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Using implicit
> knowledge creates confusing.
> As being new to Lilypond I might see inconsistencies, which are, for
> those with many experience not noticeable any more.
> I might learn those inconsistencies but first I have to comprehend them.
>
> For me, when someone come new to work for a company, the first two
> weeks are most valuable. He can see things  nobody else can see, who
> do work their many years. Use those info or it be lost.
>
> Sorry but just assigning a value to a property, when then property is
> known and the value is known, should not be such a hassle.

It isn't.  Nobody except yourself knows why you chose _not_ to stick
with the working code for that but rather walk through arbitrary
permutations of syntactic elements.

> I thought I was close. But you are right, I am not. And I am not
> spending more time to just assign a value to a property.

I have no idea why you did not just stick with the code that worked.
Instead you invented and listed a number of variations that didn't, for
a number of reasons that are not actual inconsistencies.

The only "inconsistency" I am able to see is that context modifications
(like context definitions) omit a context name for their sets/overrides,
and that they use assignment syntax without \set unlike to how context
properties are set inside of actual music.  The first is rather obvious
(how could a context modification apply to anything but the respective
context itself?).  The second is kind of a wart due to a mixture of
historical and technical reasons.

But that's pretty much it.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Bernard,

I’m sorry you’ve had such difficulty learning Lilypond.

On Apr 4, 2016, at 3:20 PM, Bernard  wrote:
> My ultimate question boils down to how to assign a value to a property. That 
> should not even be a question.

The main problem you’re having, I think, is that there are different ways of 
setting a property, depending on exactly where the setting is being done. With 
flexibility comes complexity, unfortunately — that’s an almost universal 
tradeoff in machine design.

Best regards,
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: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 04-04-16 18:35, David Kastrup wrote:

Bernard  writes:



I think I am getting quite close now. Thanks,

I have no idea what you think you are doing but I have severe doubts
that you are getting close to anything useful.  It looks to me like you
are just randomly putting syntactic entities into a bag and shake.

Have you read through the Learning Manual?  It should tell you how
LilyPond organizes its input.


Thanks David and others, but I give up.
For your info I did read the manual, much more then I wanted to.
My ultimate question boils down to how to assign a value to a property. 
That should not even be a question.


Lilypond advertise itself being easy, and it is.
{c'} does create output.
Even a bit more complex examples are made.
This because code is generated implicit. But at the same time it hides 
what is behind, creating confusing.


You have implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Using implicit 
knowledge creates confusing.
As being new to Lilypond I might see inconsistencies, which are, for 
those with many experience not noticeable any more.

I might learn those inconsistencies but first I have to comprehend them.

For me, when someone come new to work for a company, the first two weeks 
are most valuable. He can see things  nobody else can see, who do work 
their many years. Use those info or it be lost.


Sorry but just assigning a value to a property, when then property is 
known and the value is known, should not be such a hassle.


It has similarities to a Goldovsky-error 
http://www.joshuakennon.com/mental-model-goldovsky-errors . Similarities 
but not equal.
You all spend a lot of time to help me. I spend a lot of time believing 
Lilypond is easy to use and to customize.


I thought I was close. But you are right, I am not. And I am not 
spending more time to just assign a value to a property.


But still, thank you all for your efforts.

Greetings,

Bernard





At any rate, \new DrumStaff is optionally followed by a context
modification before the single music expression it typesets in the
DrumStaff context.  In the above case, that music expression is {
\override ... djembe) }, so \djEen has nothing whatsoever to do with the
DrumStaff and is just a spurious expression in the \score.




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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Paul Morris]

> On Apr 4, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Bernard  wrote:
> 
> I have attached some more real live code using /with and and example I tried 
> to skip the /with section and assign properties directly, which fails.

Here’s how to fix your example (without \with) that was not working:

\score {
  \new DrumStaff {
\override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count =  #3
\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = #"Djembe 2"
\set DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
\djEen
  }
}

As others have mentioned, reading the Learning Manual is a good idea, and 
should answer many of your questions.

http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/index.html

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Bernard  writes:

> On 04-04-16 16:51, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>> On 04.04.2016 12:46, Bernard wrote:
>>> I have attached some more real live code using /with and and
>>> example I tried to skip the /with section and assign properties
>>> directly, which fails.
>>
>> instrumentName, drumStyleTable  are context properties. Inside
>> music, these are set with the \set command, e.g.
>> \set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "foo"
>> Note that a string doesn’t need the # before.
>>
>> HTH, Simon
>>
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thanks, I could do set the properties.
> But when the voice is called I get a Error : unexpected MUSIC_IDENTIFIER
>
> when using "\with" I did not get this error.
>
> \score {
> \new DrumStaff {
> \override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count = #3
> \set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "Djembe 2"
> \set DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
> }
> \djEen
> }
>
> I think I am getting quite close now. Thanks,

I have no idea what you think you are doing but I have severe doubts
that you are getting close to anything useful.  It looks to me like you
are just randomly putting syntactic entities into a bag and shake.

Have you read through the Learning Manual?  It should tell you how
LilyPond organizes its input.

At any rate, \new DrumStaff is optionally followed by a context
modification before the single music expression it typesets in the
DrumStaff context.  In the above case, that music expression is {
\override ... djembe) }, so \djEen has nothing whatsoever to do with the
DrumStaff and is just a spurious expression in the \score.

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi Bernard,

> \score {
> \new DrumStaff {
> \override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count = #3
> \set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "Djembe 2"
> \set DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
> }
> \djEen
> }

If, like me, you prefer separating musical content from presentation as much as 
possible, maybe modify the context instead:

\layout {
  \context {
\DrumStaff
\override StaffSymbol.line-count = #3
instrumentName = "Djembe 2"
drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
  }
}

\score {
  \new DrumStaff \djEen
}

Hope this helps!
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: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.04.2016 17:36, Bernard wrote:

On 04-04-16 16:51, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 04.04.2016 12:46, Bernard wrote:
I have attached some more real live code using /with and and example 
I tried to skip the /with section and assign properties directly, 
which fails.


instrumentName, drumStyleTable  are context properties. Inside 
music, these are set with the \set command, e.g.

\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "foo"
Note that a string doesn’t need the # before.

HTH, Simon


Hi Simon,

Thanks, I could do set the properties.
But when the voice is called I get a Error : unexpected MUSIC_IDENTIFIER

when using "\with" I did not get this error.

\score {
\new DrumStaff {
\override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count = #3
\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "Djembe 2"
\set DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
}
\djEen
}


Are you familiar with the whole of the Learning Manual? If not, you 
should read it thoroughly.
\score {} can only contain /one/ music expression. Your example has two 
music expressions, the second without any link to the first. You need to 
either bind them together as sequential {} or simultaneous <<>> music – 
in this case it doesn’t really matter which.


HTH, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 04-04-16 16:51, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 04.04.2016 12:46, Bernard wrote:
I have attached some more real live code using /with and and example 
I tried to skip the /with section and assign properties directly, 
which fails.


instrumentName, drumStyleTable  are context properties. Inside 
music, these are set with the \set command, e.g.

\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "foo"
Note that a string doesn’t need the # before.

HTH, Simon


Hi Simon,

Thanks, I could do set the properties.
But when the voice is called I get a Error : unexpected MUSIC_IDENTIFIER

when using "\with" I did not get this error.

\score {
\new DrumStaff {
\override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count = #3
\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "Djembe 2"
\set DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe)
}
\djEen
}

I think I am getting quite close now. Thanks,

Greetings

Bernard



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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 04.04.2016 12:46, Bernard wrote:
I have attached some more real live code using /with and and example I 
tried to skip the /with section and assign properties directly, which 
fails.


instrumentName, drumStyleTable  are context properties. Inside music, 
these are set with the \set command, e.g.

\set DrumStaff.instrumentName = "foo"
Note that a string doesn’t need the # before.

HTH, Simon

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 03-04-16 22:56, David Kastrup wrote:

Bernard  writes:



Hi Paul,

That does help. I found out \with is a very special statement.

Not really.  \with can be part of other constructs, just like "else" can
be part of other constructs in many programming languages (including
Scheme).  It is not a "statement" at all.
That does help a lot. Now I understand why there can not be anything 
before /with.



It influence what happens before the statement, it must be executed
just after \new . That is the reason why my examples 4 and 5 did not
work.
And it influence what happens after the statement. If within the Staff
not a additional Staff property can be set.

No wonder it confuses me.

\with introduces "context modifications".  They are basic expressions in
that they can be stored in variables and passed to functions, but to
take effect, they need to be applied to an actually created context, and
there are various syntactic constructs for doing that.

They "influence what happens after the statement" like any modification
to anything.  Their influence is restricted to contexts they are applied
to (possibly via layout or context definitions or wrapped into other
context modifications).



I still do not get it all. By the way, I am my self a Python programmer 
and object orientation in known to me.


The example of Thomas Morly with his house with rooms is all in line 
with object orientation and setting values of properties.


But still I am missing something.

I have attached some more real live code using /with and and example I 
tried to skip the /with section and assign properties directly, which fails.


Thanks very much for all your good work.

With regards,

Bernard


\version "2.18.2"

#(define djembe '(
 (dbassdefault   #f   -2)
 (dbassmutedefault   "stopped"-2)
 (dbassopendefault   "open"   -2)
 (dopendefault   #f   0)
 (dopenmutedefault   "stopped"0)  
 (dopenopendefault   "open"   0)  
 (dslapdefault   #f   2)
 (dslapmutedefault   "stopped"2)
 (dslapopendefault   "open"   2)
 (sidestick	   cross #f   -4)))

% no abbrevation for the open variant, it is hardly used
drumPitchNames.dbass  = #'dbass 
drumPitchNames.dba= #'dbass  % db seems to be in use
drumPitchNames.dbassmute  = #'dbassmute
drumPitchNames.dbm= #'dbassmute  
drumPitchNames.dbassopen  = #'dbassopen
drumPitchNames.dopen  = #'dopen   
drumPitchNames.do = #'dopen  
drumPitchNames.dopenmute  = #'dopenmute 
drumPitchNames.dom= #'dopenmute  
drumPitchNames.dopenopen  = #'dopenopen  
drumPitchNames.dslap  = #'dslap   
drumPitchNames.ds = #'dslap 
drumPitchNames.dslapmute  = #'dslapmute
drumPitchNames.dsm= #'dslapmute
drumPitchNames.dslapopen  = #'dslapopen 

% assign to full name, assign to abbrevation does not work.
midiDrumPitches.dbass = g
midiDrumPitches.dopen =  a
midiDrumPitches.dslap =  b
midiDrumPitches.dbassmute = fis
midiDrumPitches.dopenmute = gis
midiDrumPitches.dslapmute = ais  

djEen =  \drummode { dba4 do }

% with with section of context
% Line count and instrumentname correct processed
\markup { with section }
\score {  
   \new DrumStaff
\with {
  \override StaffSymbol.line-count =  #3
  instrumentName = #"Djembe 1" 
  drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe) 
} 
\djEen  
}

\markup { without the use of the with section }
% generate error
\score {  
   \new DrumStaff  {  
  \override DrumStaff.StaffSymbol.line-count =  #3
  DrumStaff.instrumentName = #"Djembe 2" 
  DrumStaff.drumStyleTable = #(alist->hash-table djembe) 
   } 
   \djEen 
}
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Thomas Morley]

2016-04-03 21:02 GMT+02:00 Bernard :
> On 03-04-16 18:33, Thomas Morley wrote:
>>
>> 2016-04-03 16:59 GMT+02:00 Bernard :
>>
>>> All boils down to what is the \with statement.
>>
>> Well,
>>
>> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning-big-page#modifying-context-properties
>> seems pretty clear to me. There you can read:
>> " When a context is created with a \new command it may be followed
>> _immediately_ by a \with { … } block in which the default property
>> values are set."
>>
>> Please tell whats wrong with it.
>
> For me this,

??

> and that there can be no statement after the \with { ..} block
> for the Staff was possible, I did not know.

If I understand you correctly, you are wrong, as I tried to point out
in my other recent mail.

> As I just wrote to Paul Morris.
>
>>
>>
>>> If I could view, within an implicit context , like :
>>> {c'}
>>> the full explicit context like :
>>> \score {
>>> \new Staff {
>>> \new Voice {c'}
>>> }
>>> }
>>
>>
>> Well, I don't get what problem you seem to have. The following may of
>> some help, though:
>>
>> \version "2.19.36"
>>
>> #(define (single-context-parent-tree ctx)
>>(if (and (ly:context? ctx) (ly:context? (ly:context-parent ctx)))
>>(single-context-parent-tree (ly:context-parent ctx))
>>(format #f "~a" ctx)))
>>
>> printBottomContextParents =
>> \context Bottom
>> \applyContext
>>#(lambda (a)
>>  (let ((ls (drop-right
>>  (string-split
>>(single-context-parent-tree a)
>>(car (string->list "(")))
>>  1)))
>>  (format #t "\n\nThe Context-parent-tree:")
>>  (format #t
>>"\n(Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are
>> printed)")
>>  (for-each
>>(lambda (s)
>>  (format #t "\n~a~a"
>>(cond ((string-contains s "Score")
>>   (make-string 1 #\tab))
>>  ((string-contains s "Staff")
>>   (make-string 2 #\tab))
>>  ((string-contains s "Voice")
>>   (make-string 3 #\tab))
>>  (else ""))
>>(string-trim-both s (lambda (c)
>>  (or (eqv? c #\>)
>>  (eqv? c #\sp)
>>  (eqv? c #\)))
>>ls)))
>>
>> m = { c''4  }
>>
>>\new Score = "my-score"
>>  <<
>>\new Staff = "staff-1"
>>  \new Voice = "voice-1"
>>  <<
>>\new Voice = "voice-1a" { \voiceOne \m }
>>\new Voice = "voice-1b" { \voiceTwo \m }
>>  >>
>>\new Staff = "staff-2"
>>  \new Voice = "voice-2"
>>  <<
>>\new Voice = "voice-2a" { \voiceOne \printBottomContextParents
>> \m }
>>\new Voice = "voice-2b" { \voiceTwo \m }
>>  >>
>>  >>
>>
>> { \printBottomContextParents \m }
>>
>>
>> You'll get in terminal:
>>
>> The Context-parent-tree:
>> (Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)
>> #>  #>  #>  #>  #>  #>  #>  #>  #>  #>
>>
>> The Context-parent-tree:
>> (Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)
>> #>  #>  #>  #
>
> You are right, this does not help me. But I am surprised about you code. It
> does work but I have no idea how.


No need to understand the coding of the printing-procedures and it
would be a heavy task to explain it line by line. If it helps, just
enjoy, but be aware it's a first-shot-coding. It's usage is limited
and there may be glitches.

Cheers,
  Harm

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[David Kastrup]

Bernard  writes:

> On 03-04-16 17:57, Paul Morris wrote:
>>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:
>>>
>>> This should help:
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-context-default-settings#index-_005cwith-3
>> See also:
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/modifying-context-plug_002dins#index-_005cwith
>>
>> -Paul
> Hi Paul,
>
> That does help. I found out \with is a very special statement.

Not really.  \with can be part of other constructs, just like "else" can
be part of other constructs in many programming languages (including
Scheme).  It is not a "statement" at all.

> It influence what happens before the statement, it must be executed
> just after \new . That is the reason why my examples 4 and 5 did not
> work.
> And it influence what happens after the statement. If within the Staff
> not a additional Staff property can be set.
>
> No wonder it confuses me.

\with introduces "context modifications".  They are basic expressions in
that they can be stored in variables and passed to functions, but to
take effect, they need to be applied to an actually created context, and
there are various syntactic constructs for doing that.

They "influence what happens after the statement" like any modification
to anything.  Their influence is restricted to contexts they are applied
to (possibly via layout or context definitions or wrapped into other
context modifications).

-- 
David Kastrup

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Thomas Morley]

2016-04-03 20:55 GMT+02:00 Bernard :
> On 03-04-16 17:57, Paul Morris wrote:
>>>
>>> On Apr 3, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:
>>>
>>> This should help:
>>>
>>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-context-default-settings#index-_005cwith-3
>>
>> See also:
>>
>> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/modifying-context-plug_002dins#index-_005cwith
>>
>> -Paul
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> That does help. I found out \with is a very special statement.
>
> It influence what happens before the statement, it must be executed just
> after \new . That is the reason why my examples 4 and 5 did not work.
> And it influence what happens after the statement. If within the Staff not a
> additional Staff property can be set.

No!!

To give an image.
Think of a house. It is built in a certain way from the fundament up
to the roof.
(Ofcourse this house may have different rooms.)
It likely contains furniture and other stuff.
And ofcourse there may be people living in the house.

Back to LilyPond.
Replace house by Staff,
The Staff-context is built from certain engravers. It is sorted among
other context (you live in a city).
Staff contains other settings as well, the furniture.
And is parent to other contexts, p.e. Voices, the rooms.
Replace there living people with music.

If you write
\new Staff \new Voice { c'1 }
you have the note c' living in the Voice-context (the room), which is
part of Staff (the house)

If you want to change something for someone in a room (voice) you can
apply tweaks/overrides/context-settings for them. Those are in general
sort of temporarary
\new Staff \new Voice { c'1 \override NoteHead.color = #red c' \revert
NoteHead.color c'  }

If you want to change it for all people in the room one possibility is
to add something to the furniture of the room, i.e. add something to
the fundamental settings of said room (voice).
\new Staff \new Voice \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red } { c'1 c' c' }
Ofcourse this is revertable.
\new Staff \new Voice \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red } { c'1
c' \revert NoteHead.color c' }

If you want to change it for every room in the house, apply it to the
house (staff)
\new Staff \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red } \new Voice { c'1
c' \revert Staff.NoteHead.color c' }
The difference is more obvious if you watch more than one room (voice):

\new Staff <<
  \new Voice \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red }
{ \voiceOne c'1 c' c' }
  \new Voice \with { \override NoteHead.color = #cyan }
{ \voiceTwo c1 c \revert NoteHead.color c }
>>

\new Staff
  \with { \override NoteHead.color = #red }
  <<
\new Voice
  \with { \override NoteHead.color = #green }
  { \voiceOne c'1 \revert NoteHead.color c' \revert
Staff.NoteHead.color c' }
\new Voice
  \with { \override NoteHead.color = #cyan }
  { \voiceTwo c1 \revert NoteHead.color c  c }
  >>

For testing such things I always use colors, they are not that invasive.
Your own examples uses StaffSymbol-overrides which is bad, if you want
to research things. You can't change one and the same grob on the fly.
Every of your examples has only _one_ StaffSymbol-grob. So you can't
see anything  useful.


HTH,
  Harm

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 03-04-16 18:33, Thomas Morley wrote:

2016-04-03 16:59 GMT+02:00 Bernard :


All boils down to what is the \with statement.

Well,
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning-big-page#modifying-context-properties
seems pretty clear to me. There you can read:
" When a context is created with a \new command it may be followed
_immediately_ by a \with { … } block in which the default property
values are set."

Please tell whats wrong with it.
For me this, and that there can be no statement after the \with { ..} 
block for the Staff was possible, I did not know. As I just wrote to 
Paul Morris.




If I could view, within an implicit context , like :
{c'}
the full explicit context like :
\score {
\new Staff {
\new Voice {c'}
}
}


Well, I don't get what problem you seem to have. The following may of
some help, though:

\version "2.19.36"

#(define (single-context-parent-tree ctx)
   (if (and (ly:context? ctx) (ly:context? (ly:context-parent ctx)))
   (single-context-parent-tree (ly:context-parent ctx))
   (format #f "~a" ctx)))

printBottomContextParents =
\context Bottom
\applyContext
   #(lambda (a)
 (let ((ls (drop-right
 (string-split
   (single-context-parent-tree a)
   (car (string->list "(")))
 1)))
 (format #t "\n\nThe Context-parent-tree:")
 (format #t
   "\n(Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)")
 (for-each
   (lambda (s)
 (format #t "\n~a~a"
   (cond ((string-contains s "Score")
  (make-string 1 #\tab))
 ((string-contains s "Staff")
  (make-string 2 #\tab))
 ((string-contains s "Voice")
  (make-string 3 #\tab))
 (else ""))
   (string-trim-both s (lambda (c)
 (or (eqv? c #\>)
 (eqv? c #\sp)
 (eqv? c #\)))
   ls)))

m = { c''4  }

   \new Score = "my-score"
 <<
   \new Staff = "staff-1"
 \new Voice = "voice-1"
 <<
   \new Voice = "voice-1a" { \voiceOne \m }
   \new Voice = "voice-1b" { \voiceTwo \m }
 >>
   \new Staff = "staff-2"
 \new Voice = "voice-2"
 <<
   \new Voice = "voice-2a" { \voiceOne \printBottomContextParents \m }
   \new Voice = "voice-2b" { \voiceTwo \m }
 >>
 >>

{ \printBottomContextParents \m }


You'll get in terminal:

The Context-parent-tree:
(Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)
#

You are right, this does not help me. But I am surprised about you code. 
It does work but I have no idea how.


Sometimes I am just searching in the wrong directions and then it is 
good that you or others point this out to me.


Thanks very much.

With regards

Bernard





Don't care about the Global-context, it's not really user accessable.


Cheers,
   Harm




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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 03-04-16 17:57, Paul Morris wrote:

On Apr 3, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:

This should help:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-context-default-settings#index-_005cwith-3

See also:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/modifying-context-plug_002dins#index-_005cwith

-Paul

Hi Paul,

That does help. I found out \with is a very special statement.

It influence what happens before the statement, it must be executed just 
after \new . That is the reason why my examples 4 and 5 did not work.
And it influence what happens after the statement. If within the Staff 
not a additional Staff property can be set.


No wonder it confuses me.

Thanks for your help.

Bernard



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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Thomas Morley]

2016-04-03 16:59 GMT+02:00 Bernard :

> All boils down to what is the \with statement.

Well,
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/learning-big-page#modifying-context-properties
seems pretty clear to me. There you can read:
" When a context is created with a \new command it may be followed
_immediately_ by a \with { … } block in which the default property
values are set."

Please tell whats wrong with it.


> If I could view, within an implicit context , like :
> {c'}
> the full explicit context like :
> \score {
> \new Staff {
> \new Voice {c'}
> }
> }


Well, I don't get what problem you seem to have. The following may of
some help, though:

\version "2.19.36"

#(define (single-context-parent-tree ctx)
  (if (and (ly:context? ctx) (ly:context? (ly:context-parent ctx)))
  (single-context-parent-tree (ly:context-parent ctx))
  (format #f "~a" ctx)))

printBottomContextParents =
\context Bottom
\applyContext
  #(lambda (a)
(let ((ls (drop-right
(string-split
  (single-context-parent-tree a)
  (car (string->list "(")))
1)))
(format #t "\n\nThe Context-parent-tree:")
(format #t
  "\n(Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)")
(for-each
  (lambda (s)
(format #t "\n~a~a"
  (cond ((string-contains s "Score")
 (make-string 1 #\tab))
((string-contains s "Staff")
 (make-string 2 #\tab))
((string-contains s "Voice")
 (make-string 3 #\tab))
(else ""))
  (string-trim-both s (lambda (c)
(or (eqv? c #\>)
(eqv? c #\sp)
(eqv? c #\)))
  ls)))

m = { c''4  }

  \new Score = "my-score"
<<
  \new Staff = "staff-1"
\new Voice = "voice-1"
<<
  \new Voice = "voice-1a" { \voiceOne \m }
  \new Voice = "voice-1b" { \voiceTwo \m }
>>
  \new Staff = "staff-2"
\new Voice = "voice-2"
<<
  \new Voice = "voice-2a" { \voiceOne \printBottomContextParents \m }
  \new Voice = "voice-2b" { \voiceTwo \m }
>>
>>

{ \printBottomContextParents \m }


You'll get in terminal:

The Context-parent-tree:
(Only contexts of type Global, Score, Staff and Voice are printed)
#https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Paul Morris]

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Paul Morris  wrote:
> 
> This should help:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-context-default-settings#index-_005cwith-3

See also:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/modifying-context-plug_002dins#index-_005cwith

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Paul Morris]

Hi Bernard,

> On Apr 3, 2016, at 10:59 AM, Bernard  wrote:
> 
> All boils down to what is the \with statement. 

This should help:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/changing-context-default-settings#index-_005cwith-3

I found that section by looking for “\with” in the notation reference index:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/lilypond-index

You can search that index page quickly by using your browsers “find” command to 
look for the command you’re interested in on that page.  This approach has 
served me well for finding relevant documentation.

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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

On 03-04-16 13:30, Simon Albrecht wrote:

On 03.04.2016 08:15, Bernard wrote:

I would like to comprehend Lilyponds structure.

I read 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-explained

and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html/Musicians_Guide/sect-Musicians_Guide-LilyPond-Syntax-Commands-Contexts.html 



That does seems logical.

So if I comprehend right :

Code implicit :
{c'}

Code explicit :
\score {
\new Staff {
\new Voice {c'}
}
}

Are similar. Not identical but similar.
1) Is that correct?


Yes, that’s what is explained in the Learning Manual.


3) I would like to use and to be able to disable the \with statement.


I don’t quite get what you want to do here. Please give more 
explanation, and an example.

Ok Simon,

I tried to solve my problem myself, if I had enough info. But that make 
it to abstract.


Please see the attached examples.
1 + 2) The first two are clear now.

3) With a \with statement does execute as expected.

4) Does use the \with statement but within "{ }"
This generate the error : unexpected \new

5) As 5 but "<< >>" Also generate an error

6) Does execute, but without a \with statement and without a voice

7) As 6 but with a voice, generate an error

My real code is much more complicated. All boils down to what is the 
\with statement. That seems to be a very specific statement, which 
controls also what happens outside the statement.
I have read 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/interpretation-contexts.en.html 
and associates pages. I assume it is related, but I do not really get it.


If I could view, within an implicit context , like :
{c'}
the full explicit context like :
\score {
\new Staff {
\new Voice {c'}
}
}

That would help a lot for understanding (and bug fixing). I just want to 
comprehend this \with statement and contexts.


Thanks for your help,

Bernard


\version "2.18.2"

%1) Implicit
{c'}

%2)  Explicit
\score {
  \new Staff { 
\new Voice {c'}
  }
}

%3) Does run, using \with statement 
\score { 
   \new Staff 
 \with {  
\override StaffSymbol.line-count = #0
  }  
   \new Voice {c'}
 } 
 
% 4)Generate error, using {} arround \with statement 
\score { 
   \new Staff {
 \with {  
\override StaffSymbol.line-count = #0
  }  
   }
   \new Voice {c'}
 } 
 
% 5) Generate error, using << and >> arround \with statement 
\score { 
   \new Staff <<
 \with {  
\override StaffSymbol.line-count = #0
  }  
   >>
   \new Voice {c'}
 } 
 
% 6) Does execute without \with statement and without voice
 \score { 
   \new Staff {
   \override Staff.StaffSymbol.line-count =  #0
   }
 }
 
% 7) Generate error, without \with statement 
 \score { 
   \new Staff {
   \override Staff.StaffSymbol.line-count =  #0
   }
   % generate unexpected \new
   \new Voice  {c'}   
 }


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

Re: Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Simon Albrecht]

On 03.04.2016 08:15, Bernard wrote:

I would like to comprehend Lilyponds structure.

I read 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-explained

and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html/Musicians_Guide/sect-Musicians_Guide-LilyPond-Syntax-Commands-Contexts.html 



That does seems logical.

So if I comprehend right :

Code implicit :
{c'}

Code explicit :
\score {
  \new Staff {
\new Voice {c'}
  }
}

Are similar. Not identical but similar.
1) Is that correct?


Yes, that’s what is explained in the Learning Manual.


3) I would like to use and to be able to disable the \with statement.


I don’t quite get what you want to do here. Please give more 
explanation, and an example.


Best, Simon

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

Lilypond structure / implicit - explicit / with statement

[Bernard]

I would like to comprehend Lilyponds structure.

I read 
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/learning/contexts-explained

and
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/16/html/Musicians_Guide/sect-Musicians_Guide-LilyPond-Syntax-Commands-Contexts.html 



That does seems logical.

So if I comprehend right :

Code implicit :
{c'}

Code explicit :
\score {
  \new Staff {
\new Voice {c'}
  }
}

Are similar. Not identical but similar.
1) Is that correct?

2) Can from the implicit code the explicit code be generated?
So if I have doubt what the structure is, I can view this.

3) I would like to use and to be able to disable the \with statement. 
But I could not find any documentation about it. Do you have a link for me?


Thanks, I really like the style of help of this newsgroups. This 
stimulate me to continue learning and using Lilypond.


With regards

Bernard

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