Re: [TeX-music] I want your tests
Christof Biebricher wrote: On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, Daniel Taupin wrote: Appended if my proposal for a further version of musixtex.tex. Before posting it officially, I would like to as to all of you to test it, in place of the T109 ot T110 versions you may have. Some command structures have been changes and it does not fail in some of my examples, but other tests would be welcome. Checked with several older and newer files under linux; works fine. Is there somebody who observes difficulties or slowing down when \including musixadd? Otherwise it could IMO also be incorporated in musixtex. I'm really reluctant, once more, because of the problem of register consumption. This make musixadd and musixmadd not compatible with other register consuming packages, especially in LaTeX. Otherwise, MusiXTeX would become reserved for Omega users. Christof ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music -- Daniel Taupin, 91400 ORSAY - France E-mail= mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Home/fax: (33)1.60.10.26.44. Rep.: (33)1.60.10.04.13, fax (work) (33)1.69.15.60.86 ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
RE: [TeX-music] I want your tests
Danaiel Taupin wrote: I'm really reluctant, once more, because of the problem of register consumption. This make musixadd and musixmadd not compatible with other register consuming packages, especially in LaTeX. I agree with Daniel. I have encountered some problems with MusiXTeX (T109) in combination with LaTeX due to the limit of 255 dimen registers. Vanilla LaTeX still works, but as soon as one adds some popular packages (graphicx, fancyhdr) the ceiling is hit. :-( Greetz, Arjen -- Arjen Bax | LogicaCMG B.V. NNL | Postbus 70237 | 9704 AE Groningen | Eemsgolaan 1 | 9727 DW Groningen | The Netherlands | ICQ # 171090809 | TEL +31-50-5219500 | FAX +31-50-5219501 | WEB http://www.logicacmg.com Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] I want your tests
Christof Biebricher wrote: Is there somebody who observes difficulties or slowing down when \including musixadd? Otherwise it could IMO also be incorporated in musixtex. I'm really reluctant, once more, because of the problem of register consumption. this is a valid concern: i occasionally encounter such problems with musixtex. This make musixadd and musixmadd not compatible with other register consuming packages, especially in LaTeX. Otherwise, MusiXTeX would become reserved for Omega users. and e-tex users. omega remains a minority sport (because of stability) but most distributions offer e-tex nowadays, don't they? robin ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
[TeX-music] MusiXTeX and TeX register limitation [was: I want your tests]
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:57:37PM +0100, taupin (wanadoo-lps) wrote: Is there somebody who observes difficulties or slowing down when \including musixadd? Otherwise it could IMO also be incorporated in musixtex. I'm really reluctant, once more, because of the problem of register consumption. This make musixadd and musixmadd not compatible with other register consuming packages, especially in LaTeX. Otherwise, MusiXTeX would become reserved for Omega users. Just an idea: What about having MusiXTeX use macros instead of registers? Sure, this would make musixtex.tex's coding somewhat more complicated, especially where calculations are to be performed, but in many situations, macros behave just like allocated registers. I've done this change with musixlyr, and in the end I was surprised how little the necessary code changes actually were. vision Having overcome the register limitation, MusiXTeX could easily be made capable of handling arbitrary numbers of instruments, slurs, beams, etc. /vision Best regards, Rainer ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
[TeX-music] AW: Arpeggios in PMX/MusiXTeX
Hi Olivier, Don and Andre,
Olivier wrote:
[...]
the following code
\let\oldraisearp\raisearp\def\raisearp#1#2{\loffset{.8}{\oldra
isearp{#1}{#2}}}\
e24 zfs za ? r2 /
must be written on only one line in your code!
that one helped, everything is fine now...
Thanks a lot!
kind regards
Michael
___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] MusiXTeX and TeX register limitation [was: I wantyour tests]
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Rainer Dunker wrote: On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:57:37PM +0100, taupin (wanadoo-lps) wrote: Is there somebody who observes difficulties or slowing down when \including musixadd? Otherwise it could IMO also be incorporated in musixtex. I'm really reluctant, once more, because of the problem of register consumption. This make musixadd and musixmadd not compatible with other register consuming packages, especially in LaTeX. Otherwise, MusiXTeX would become reserved for Omega users. Just an idea: What about having MusiXTeX use macros instead of registers? Sure, this would make musixtex.tex's coding somewhat more complicated, especially where calculations are to be performed, but in many situations, macros behave just like allocated registers. I've done this change with musixlyr, and in the end I was surprised how little the necessary code changes actually were. vision Having overcome the register limitation, MusiXTeX could easily be made capable of handling arbitrary numbers of instruments, slurs, beams, etc. /vision Wouldn't changing from registers to macros dramatically affect the speed? For typing short pieces this shouldn't be a problem. But for rather big scores? I remarked already that adding lyrics to a piece using musixlyr considerably slows down PMXing and TeXing. regards Bernhard ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] MusiXTeX and TeX register limitation [was: I want your tests]
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:58:41PM +0100, Bernhard Lang wrote: Just an idea: What about having MusiXTeX use macros instead of registers? Sure, this would make musixtex.tex's coding somewhat more complicated, especially where calculations are to be performed, but in many situations, macros behave just like allocated registers. I've done this change with musixlyr, and in the end I was surprised how little the necessary code changes actually were. [...] Wouldn't changing from registers to macros dramatically affect the speed? I've got no evidence, but I don't expect any considerable performance loss. TeX's macro mechanism is highly performant, thus expanding a short macro shouldn't be much slower than looking up a register content. (Perhaps it's even faster? I don't know ...) For typing short pieces this shouldn't be a problem. But for rather big scores? I remarked already that adding lyrics to a piece using musixlyr considerably slows down PMXing and TeXing. That's regrettably true, but it has nothing to do with the register/macro choice. It's a rather general property of musixlyr, based on the fact that the necessary lyrics analysis (i.e. the splitting into syllables) can be accomplished with TeX data structures only in squared-degree, not linear, execution time (related to the length of the lyrics input). It shouldn't have any significance on PMXing, though. Best regards, Rainer ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] MusiXTeX and TeX register limitation [was: I wantyour tests]
It's a rather general property of musixlyr, based on the fact that the necessary lyrics analysis (i.e. the splitting into syllables) can be accomplished with TeX data structures only in squared-degree, not linear, execution time (related to the length of the lyrics input). Thus, n bytes of lyrics, cut into some small pieces and put at the proper position, will win over n bytes at one shot at the beginning? It shouldn't have any significance on PMXing, though. I agree. regards Bernhard ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] MusiXTeX and TeX register limitation [was: I want your tests]
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 03:59:26PM +0100, Bernhard Lang wrote: It's a rather general property of musixlyr, based on the fact that the necessary lyrics analysis (i.e. the splitting into syllables) can be accomplished with TeX data structures only in squared-degree, not linear, execution time (related to the length of the lyrics input). Thus, n bytes of lyrics, cut into some small pieces and put at the proper position, will win over n bytes at one shot at the beginning? Principally yes. Nevertheless, I've never tried at which amount of lyrics you'll really notice a speed difference. Best regards, Rainer ___ TeX-music mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
[TeX-music] Incompatibity between MusiXTeX T110 and T111
I discover a problem with the version T111 of MusiXTeX. If you compile the
following simple code with plain TeX
---
\input musixtex
\message{\the\internote}
\bye
---
You get 2.5pt with version T110 of MusiXTeX and 0.0pt with version T111.
I discover this problem because the numbers of bars are not written at the
same place, since their position depend of \raisebarno and \shiftbarno
defined in \internote unit.
So I don't know if there are other dimen registers depending of \internote
and implying other disturbances?
Olivier
_
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [TeX-music] musixpss ver.0.50 is now available
Hello Cataldi, - MikTeX 2.2 under windows 98 - MetaPost version: 0.641 - pdfTeX Version 3.14159-1.00c-pretest-20020426 (MiKTeX 2.2) - supp-pdf.tex: 2000.04.28 - supp-mis.tex: 2000.03.31 Mm... I'm in confusion. Let me compose myself. (1) [pdftex] I had lost the files of pdfTeX 1.00c-pretest-20020426, and now it has already disappeared from sites. So I can't reproduct your error; I only can search past infomations. The W32TeX distribution change log by A. Kakuto says: there is a bug in supp-pdf.tex. supp-pdf.tex and supp-mis.tex is replaced to latest ones. there is a minor update in pdfTeX. in many times, around those time from 2002/04/27 (release of 1.00c- pretest-20020426) to 2002/08/18. 1.10a-devel was first released on 2002/07/13 but was sometimes changed until 2002/09/07 with same version signature. (2) [supp-pdf.tex, supp-mis.tex] I suppose your report means the time stamp of the file; while mine meant the strings in the header of the two files. My supp-pdf.tex and supp-mis.tex has the time stamp 2002/08/16. Which is the truth? ...Perhaps the header and its date signature have not been rewrited. ---(1) change log. (3) [MetaPost] This is the same of mine; the only public version. --- MetaPost website. (4) [Distribution] MikTeX for win32 is not available in Japan, but I suppose the difference from teTeX must be not serious problem. Overall of these 4 points, I guess the suspect is the version of pdfTeX, supp-pdf, supp-mis . I had heard there was drastic change about embedding figures between 1.00c-pretest-** and 1.10a-devel-**. The attached file contains simplified test routines and my resulting log and PDF. Would you please trying pdftex pdfstest.tex and sending the results to me in case it fails? Perhaps it fails with your current pdfTeX. Thus, all I can do is to hope latest MikTeX with pdfTeX 1.10a (if available such thing) will enable you to use musixpss in pdfTeX mode. Sorry for my unskillful response. Best regards, Hiroaki MORIMOTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] pdfstest.tar.gz Description: Binary data
Re: [TeX-music] Incompatibity between MusiXTeX T110 and T111
Yes, there is a bug, an incompatibility with the correction required by
Cornelius C. Noack [EMAIL PROTECTED] and the problem raise
by Olivier Vogel.
In ordrer to conciliate both, I propose the following change:
4418c4418
\noinstrum@nt1\s@l@ctinstr
---
\noinstrum@nt1\s@l@ctinstr\internote\Internote
Please try that ALL. If no objection, this will result in musixtex.tex
version T.112
Olivier Vogel wrote:
I discover a problem with the version T111 of MusiXTeX. If you compile the
following simple code with plain TeX
---
\input musixtex
\message{\the\internote}
\bye
---
You get 2.5pt with version T110 of MusiXTeX and 0.0pt with version T111.
I discover this problem because the numbers of bars are not written at the
same place, since their position depend of \raisebarno and \shiftbarno
defined in \internote unit.
So I don't know if there are other dimen registers depending of \internote
and implying other disturbances?
Olivier
_
MSN Search, le moteur de recherche qui pense comme vous !
http://search.msn.fr/worldwide.asp
___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
--
Daniel Taupin, 91400 ORSAY - France
E-mail= mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home/fax: (33)1.60.10.26.44. Rep.: (33)1.60.10.04.13, fax (work)
(33)1.69.15.60.86
___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
