Re: [TeX-music] Updated T111 release

2003-01-07 Thread Luigi Cataldi 
At 00.29 06/01/03 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Enclosed is (after a little correction solving a by problem from
>Cornelius Noack) a beta version of T111.
>
>Please test it with your most awfull music scores.
>
>Enclosed if also the source of updated musixdoc.tex, which you would be
>welcome to compile also (it is my most terrible test, but succeding
>things here might fail elsewhere...).
>
>Any corrections are welcome.
>
>

I've tested the new version, like the previous one. No problem for me!

Luigi

___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music

Re: [TeX-music] Updated T111 release

2003-01-07 Thread Hiroaki MORIMOTO 
Hello Daniel and all, 

> Enclosed is (after a little correction solving a by problem from
> Cornelius Noack) a beta version of T111.
> 
> Please test it with your most awfull music scores.
> 
> Enclosed if also the source of updated musixdoc.tex, which you would be
> welcome to compile also (it is my most terrible test, but succeding
> things here might fail elsewhere...).
> 
> Any corrections are welcome.

I tried new updated T.111 and musixdoc.tex with and without 
musixpss v0.50; 
I found no problem on my system except for some intentional(?) 
"Overfull \hbox/\vbox", "Underfull \vbox".
(but what is the meaning of bold vertical rule in the margin 
at section 2.16.1 ??)

Also, I tried this for some scores with Japanese lyrics generated 
by M-Tx and PMX.  It seems fine as previous versions were, too.

My current system:
  TeX 3.14159
  pTeX (a Japanized TeX by ASCII co.) 3.14159-p3.0.5 
  pdfTeX 3.14159-1.10a-betax-20021125
  : distributed by A.Kakuto, based on teTeX and web2c-7.3.11
  Win2000-sp2


BTW I found some changes of slur macro in T.109 and this T.111 
in macro \writ@slur#1#2#3#4 . (adding \check@staff)  

musixpss has not traced this change from T.108 (..T.99) to T.109 yet.
(= has not included \check@staff)
I can't guess the effect of this.  For the time being it seems OK.
But possibly current musixpss might degrade the reliability of
T.109 and T.111 ??
I must research this.

The change from T.109 to T.111 seems to have no concern with musixpss.

---

As far as I know, MusiXTeX is the ONLY free musical typesetting 
system with both excellent appearance and the compatibility with
handling the Japanese language.
Thank you again for your providing MusiXTeX.

Best regards,


Hiroaki MORIMOTO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music

Re: [TeX-music] Updated T111 release

2003-01-07 Thread Daniel Taupin 


Hiroaki MORIMOTO wrote:
> 

> Also, I tried this for some scores with Japanese lyrics generated
> by M-Tx and PMX.  It seems fine as previous versions were, too.
> 
> My current system:
>   TeX 3.14159
>   pTeX (a Japanized TeX by ASCII co.) 3.14159-p3.0.5
>   pdfTeX 3.14159-1.10a-betax-20021125
>   : distributed by A.Kakuto, based on teTeX and web2c-7.3.11
>   Win2000-sp2
> 
> BTW I found some changes of slur macro in T.109 and this T.111
> in macro \writ@slur#1#2#3#4 . (adding \check@staff)
> 
> musixpss has not traced this change from T.108 (..T.99) to T.109 yet.
> (= has not included \check@staff)
> I can't guess the effect of this.  For the time being it seems OK.

\Check@staff checks that you do not say \notes \qu k|\qu l|\qu z\en
for an instrument which only has 1 or 2 declared staffs. Otherwise,
setting | instead of & often mades no visibles error... since the
distance between instruments is the same as between stafs of a single
instrument. But if you change one of them and not the other, there is a
misleading vertical offset, so that your core becommes wrong. I
experienced that trick.


> But possibly current musixpss might degrade the reliability of
> T.109 and T.111 ??
> I must research this.

I do not thing so, the behaviour is the same, but some new features have
geen added, and a few duplicate things removed.
> 
> The change from T.109 to T.111 seems to have no concern with musixpss.
> 



  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] Updated T111 release

2003-01-13 Thread Luigi Cataldi 
Dear Daniel,

I'm sorry if this notice comes so late, but until now I didn't notice a
problem in the beta version T111 (the second one you sended with the name
musix-t111.ZIP). With all my scores made with PMX the bar numbers are
placed, below the normal position, overlapped with the top line of the
staff. For the bar line I use this TeX command:

\def\writebarno{\ifnum\barno>1\lrlap{\oldstyle\the\barno\barnoadd}\fi}%
\def\shiftbarno{3.5\Interligne}

My TeX version is TeX is 3.14159 under MiKTeX. My PMX version is 2.407.

I find this problem with alla my scores. It seems that slurs that comes
across a line break interferes with bar number.


Regards

Luigi

At 00.29 06/01/03 +0100, you wrote:
>
>Enclosed is (after a little correction solving a by problem from
>Cornelius Noack) a beta version of T111.
>
>Please test it with your most awfull music scores.
>
>Enclosed if also the source of updated musixdoc.tex, which you would be
>welcome to compile also (it is my most terrible test, but succeding
>things here might fail elsewhere...).
>
>Any corrections are welcome.
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>
>  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
>Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\musix-t111.ZIP"
>

___
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music