Re: [Tex-music] Compiling mtxdoc in Windows (was RE: Compile error in M-Tx documentation)
Bob Tennent wrote: |... I wouldn't think that Windows users would |have any interest in constructing mtxdoc.pdf from scratch. | |I've been responsible for creating extensive revisions of musixdoc, |which is |a more complex document than mtxdoc, and I did all the work in |Windows. So I |have more than a passing interest in learning as much as I can about the |process. And one thing I've learned is that the process can be simpler and |the files required much less numerous if you just embed the musical |examples |in the document, much less breaking individual examples into more than one |file each. Don: I wasn't thinking of you as the typical Windows user. If you just want to learn about how Dirk sets up his compilation, that's fine. But you might want to ask Dirk why he set it up the way he did. make (or derivatives) is the only logical system to use for the build system of code-based projects - the difference between make and a shell script is that make only rebuilds files which need to be rebuilt (so, for example, if you changed mtxdoc.tex, Dirk's Makefile would not rebuild all of the examples from the .mta and .mtb files and if you changed just one .mta or .mtb file then it would only rebuild the examples which depend on that specific file, not all of them). While the difference is irrelevant if you're building a project from scratch (i.e. for a deployment/installation script), that's very useful when you're actually working on it as you don't have to recompile absolutely everything each time you want to see a change. |And if this is considered important for some reason, a batch file |isn't the right way to do it. | |I'm puzzled why you would say that, partly because I don't think you |mean Why waste the effort on writing a batch script if you're only |going to do the compilation once or twice. The response by David |seems to show how to fill in the pieces. The problem with a batch script is that, like a Makefile, it's platform dependent. Incorrect - GNU make is *extremely* cross-platform, by design - the caveat is that you have to write your Makefiles in a cross-platform way. Similarly, it's quite easy to write platform-dependent Lua scripts - it's what you write, not what you write it in that creates the problem. Instead of trying to emulate the Makefile in Windows, we should be replacing it by a platform-independent script in Lua. (This is similar to what's been done with musixflx: we no longer need to compile separate binaries for Window, Macs, Linux, Solaris, etc. because musixflx.lua will work everywhere.) I don't think every mtx user will want to re-build mtxdoc.pdf for themselves so this isn't high priority. And it's really Dirk's problem, because it's his document. The only big (Windows) problem with the Makefile is the use of ln which, despite proper underlying support in Windows Vista onwards is an awkward command because it requires an elevated command prompt to use it. make is trivially easy to install - you install http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/downlinks/make.php and then http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/downlinks/coreutils.php as this gives you Windows versions of commands like cp (the equivalent of copy) and rm (the equivalent of del), etc. GNU make itself is just one .exe and two supporting .dlls (i.e. you do not have to install a monster like Cygwin in order to get it). Although my personal preference is to install Unix utilities on Windows (as they're generally superior to the equivalent Windows commands), it's also possible to write your Makefile to detect Windows and adapt the commands it uses accordingly. This is getting a bit off-topic - it's just that seeing a relatively new poster-child (Lua in this case) being over-touted to solve problems already dealt with by a much older and better-suited tool tends to hit a nerve! Lua is a very good idea for replacing shell scripts and auxiliary programs (i.e. musixflx, makeindex, etc.), but not build systems. David --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Compiling mtxdoc in Windows (was RE: Compile error in M-Tx documentation)
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 02:44:07AM +0200, Bob Tennent wrote: But you might want to ask Dirk why he set it up the way he did. Back in 2005 I couldn't think of a better way to do it. The best way to see how dated the stuff is, is to notice that there is still a rule for making a LaserJet version in make-dvi. And it's really Dirk's problem, because it's his document. A statement like this is never true for any open-source software. It's all about writing a LaTeX document containing numerous small music excerpts. I'm not the only person who does that. By distributing my Makefile, I'm basically saying to the community: this is how I did it, you're welcome to use some of my ideas if you like. Dirk --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Coda Sign in PMX
Many thanks again, Don!
do you have somewhere a font table for musixfont or a routine to
generate it?
Kind regards,
Dieter
Am 04.05.2011 00:13, schrieb Don Simons:
DIETER glötzel wrote
What does the {10} actually mean?
There are two ways to refer to pitches in MusiXTeX: letters or
numbers. When you use a number, it represents the number of \internote
up from the bottom line of the staff, so for ANY 5-line staff, 0 is
the bottom line and 8 is the top line. The important difference is
that numbers do not affect MusiXTeX's transpose register. Because PMX
doesn't interpret any inline TeX, it's always best to use numbers for
pitches in in-line TeX commands. If you use a letter, the octave for
following stuff can get screwed up.
A related problem:
When I put \coda{10}\ in a Dtext construct or an l construct,
the coda-sign appears out of the text line. Please see example!
\coda{p} is not just a character, it's a command that roughly means
put the coda symbol at pitch level p. (See musixtex.tex for its
definition). Dtext and l are rather similar commands in PMX,
placing text at a particular location, except that PMX calculates the
location. They expect simple text strings as input, not commands.
If you want more control over where the coda symbol goes, you first
need to figure out what character it is. One way to do that is by
looking at the definition of \coda in MusiXTeX. This eventually leads
to \musixfont\char85. So you could replace your use of D... as follows:
(beware of line folds)
=
% Bar 31
%r0b DD. S. al \coda{10}\ Last time only | /
\zcharnote{-6}{\it D. S.
al\kern8pt\lower4pt\hbox{\musixfont\char85}\kern6pt Last time only}\
rb0 | /
a0 t | /
% Bar 32
=
The inner braces isolate the effect of the font change. The other crap
is what TeX requires to line up the symbol. I confess that I started
out trying this inside D... and couldn't get it to work. I also
confess to being rather mystified why when I compiled your original
source the font for the text came out a different size.
P.S. Otherwise I am extremely happy with PMX. I could never do what I do
with MusiXTeX alone.
Thanks, I'm glad to hear words like that :-)
--Don Simons
---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
eMail ist virenfrei.
Von AVG überprüft - www.avg.de http://www.avg.de
Version: 10.0.1209 / Virendatenbank: 1500/3611 - Ausgabedatum: 02.05.2011
---
TeX-music@tug.org mailing list
If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Coda Sign in PMX
DIETER glötzel wrote: Many thanks again, Don! do you have somewhere a font table for musixfont or a routine to generate it? tex testfont at the prompt enter a font name, e.g. musix16 \table \bye the result is a dvi file testfont.dvi in current working directory -- Christian Mondrup, Archive Editor WIMA: Werner Icking Music Archive http://icking-music-archive.org/ --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Coda Sign in PMX
That works, and on my MiKTeX system tex fontchart also works. --Don -Original Message- From: tex-music-boun...@tug.org [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] On Behalf Of Christian Mondrup Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 6:16 AM To: Werner Icking Music Archive Subject: Re: [Tex-music] Coda Sign in PMX DIETER glötzel wrote: Many thanks again, Don! do you have somewhere a font table for musixfont or a routine to generate it? tex testfont at the prompt enter a font name, e.g. musix16 \table \bye the result is a dvi file testfont.dvi in current working directory -- Christian Mondrup, Archive Editor WIMA: Werner Icking Music Archive http://icking-music-archive.org/ --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
[Tex-music] Make (Was: Compiling mtxdoc in Windows
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 08:41:47PM +0200, Bob Tennent wrote: |GNU make itself is just one .exe and two |supporting .dlls (i.e. you do not have to install a monster like Cygwin |in order to get it). We'll see if Don is willing to do that. It shouldn't be necesary to install utilities that aren't available in MiKTeX or TeXLive just to build documentation. At the risk of labouring a point I have made in another post: it isn't just a question of building documentation. It's about a method for creating a LaTeX document containing plenty of music snippets originally coded in M-Tx. Dirk --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Make (Was: Compiling mtxdoc in Windows
|At the risk of labouring a point I have made in another post: it isn't |just a question of building documentation. It's about a method for |creating a LaTeX document containing plenty of music snippets originally |coded in M-Tx. But the document in question *is* the main documentation for mtx. Would everybody be happy if there were *both* a Makefile (to demonstrate how to create a LaTeX document containing etc.) *and* a platform-independent script to build the documentation from scratch without using any foreign tools? Bob --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
Re: [Tex-music] Make (Was: Compiling mtxdoc in Windows
Bob Tennent wrote: |At the risk of labouring a point I have made in another post: it isn't |just a question of building documentation. It's about a method for |creating a LaTeX document containing plenty of music snippets originally |coded in M-Tx. But the document in question *is* the main documentation for mtx. Would everybody be happy if there were *both* a Makefile (to demonstrate how to create a LaTeX document containing etc.) *and* a platform-independent script to build the documentation from scratch without using any foreign tools? No - having more than one build system for anything (the Makefile vs the Lua script) is a maintenance *catastrophe* - especially if the principal maintainer isn't able to maintain both scripts him/herself. I get bored having to patch OCaml packages where some keen soul tried to write a platform-independent script (usually to enable some kind of Windows support) years before which no longer works with the latest version (because the main developers use make and don't understand the scripting used) rather than just patching the Makefile to work correctly (and maintainably) on all platforms instead... I would go so far as to say that expecting to build any non-trivial package (non-trivial = more than one source file, btw) from sources without having to install a thing is about the same as expecting the ability to edit TeX documents without installing some kind of text editor! It is *very* reasonable to try to make the MusiXTeX binary package (i.e. end-user package) not require a platform-dependent script for musixflx but extending that to the whole of the development process (and so cutting any useful tools available to assist) smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face... which is what we in the UK are probably going to be doing in our referendum tomorrow ;o) David --- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
