Re: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614)
my miktex is 2.9; ETEX is used
The logging is: ‘This is pdftex, Version 3.1415926-1.40.11 ’
see between text
From: Don Simons
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:20 PM
To: 'Werner Icking Music Archive'
Subject: Re: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I cannot recreate your problem. Do you get this TeX for bar 1?
===
% Bar count 1
\pnotes{1.73}\pt0\lower4\internote\qs\cclp{'G}\ibbl1E1\qbp1D\tbbl1\qbp1E%
\en%
\pnotes{2.00}\tbl1\qb1{'F}\en%
===
---> this is exactly what i got
What is pmx.tex2614a? Actually it shouldn’t matter since the only changes I
made in pmx.tex were deletions. New pmxab.exe would work with old pmx.tex, but
not the other way around.
---> This is the logging line:
---> PMX, a Preprocessor for MusiXTeX, Version 2.614a <17 juli 11>
I’ve done the following checks:
1. Ran the test file with the binary from the newly uploaded zip at
http://www.icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmx2614.zip
Got correct result.
---> So did i (without the correct results), the musixpoi i used had a date
5/2/2009, and in the logging: 16 jun 2008
2. Compiled pmx2614.for after commenting/uncommenting getarg lines. Ran test
file, got correct result.
I’m stumped. Can someone else try compiling the test file with the new version?
--Don
From: tex-music-boun...@tug.org [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] On Behalf Of
Andre Van Ryckeghem
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:34 PM
To: Werner Icking Music Archive
Subject: Re: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I did a run on your example with pmx2614, pmx.tex2614a,
musixtex115(3april2011), musixpointed shorties t114 (16jun2008), but i have no
better output. My output is the same as showed in your previous mail.
Am i doing something wrong?
Andre
---
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
Re: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614)
On Sun, 2011-07-17 at 15:10 -0700, Don Simons wrote: > I've just uploaded a bugfix beta version 2.614 of PMX to > > http://www.icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmx2614.zip Thank you. The results look good. > > This fixes a bug discovered by Terry Enger. It was quite a remarkable catch, > and reminded me of the PMX bugs that Werner was so adept at finding. It > depended on having all the following conditions: A (1) rest that was (2) > lowered and (3) dotted, followed by (4) a single note, followed by (5) two > beamed notes, with (6) all of the above occurring in the same notes group, > i.e., without any change in horizontal spacing increment \noteskip! Admittedly it seems a mite strange to put an \hbox in an \hbox just so that you can lower it, something that you might expect from the department of extra redundancy department. Still, is it so very strange that it gives the tex macros (musixtex.tex?, pmx.tex?, whatever!) an excuse to supply flags+beam to the 'cello G? I was expecting the fix to be somewhere in the tex macro definitions. Thank you for waiting; I am back . Experimentation with tex source code shows that neither \lower nor a nested \hbox is necessary to show the problem. Rather, I think that the \hbox is occupying space that \tbl does not account for when it lays down the start of the beams. An \hbox out at the left moves the start of the beam to the left of where it belongs; an \box after the first beamed note moves the start of the beam to the right of where it belongs. More precisely, I think that those \hbox's move the notes in the other direction from what I wrote. The effect is easier to see with an \hbox of a different width. The width \Noteskip creates a strong suggestion that the start of the beam is associated with the stem it abuts; that is just coincidence. Well, that is this newbie's guess, for what it is worth. > I still > don't understand precisely what was happening, but it was caused by PMX > putting the rest and dot together in an hbox, when the rest itself was > already automatically in an hbox. The basic error would be seen in the first > bar of the following file, which also shows how the revised algorithm tweaks > dot heights depending on whether the dot would hit a staff line. Neat! Thank you. > (snip) --- 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] New beta of PMX (2.614)
Am Montag, 18. Juli 2011, 16:20:18 schrieb Don Simons: > > > I'm stumped. Can someone else try compiling the test file with the new > version? > > > > --Don > > > I used the new version on Opensuse 11.4 and get the attached result Hermann -- Test-pmx2614.pdf Description: Adobe PDF document --- 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] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I cannot recreate your problem. Do you get this TeX for bar 1?
===
% Bar count 1
\pnotes{1.73}\pt0\lower4\internote\qs\cclp{'G}\ibbl1E1\qbp1D\tbbl1\qbp1E%
\en%
\pnotes{2.00}\tbl1\qb1{'F}\en%
===
What is pmx.tex2614a? Actually it shouldn't matter since the only changes I
made in pmx.tex were deletions. New pmxab.exe would work with old pmx.tex,
but not the other way around.
I've done the following checks:
1. Ran the test file with the binary from the newly uploaded zip at
http://www.icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmx2614.zip
Got correct result.
2. Compiled pmx2614.for after commenting/uncommenting getarg lines. Ran test
file, got correct result.
I'm stumped. Can someone else try compiling the test file with the new
version?
--Don
From: tex-music-boun...@tug.org [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] On Behalf
Of Andre Van Ryckeghem
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:34 PM
To: Werner Icking Music Archive
Subject: Re: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I did a run on your example with pmx2614, pmx.tex2614a,
musixtex115(3april2011), musixpointed shorties t114 (16jun2008), but i have
no better output. My output is the same as showed in your previous mail.
Am i doing something wrong?
Andre
---
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] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I did a run on your example with pmx2614, pmx.tex2614a, musixtex115(3april2011), musixpointed shorties t114 (16jun2008), but i have no better output. My output is the same as showed in your previous mail. Am i doing something wrong? Andre --- 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] New beta of PMX (2.614)
Here's the "pre-bugfix" result of processing the file below (graphic might not come through for everyone). Note that in addition to Terry's weirdness in bar 1, the dots within the staff collided with staff lines in the older version---another bug no one ever pointed out before. --Don >-Original Message- >From: tex-music-boun...@tug.org [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] On Behalf Of >Don Simons >Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2011 3:10 PM >To: 'Werner Icking Music Archive' >Subject: [Tex-music] New beta of PMX (2.614) > >I've just uploaded a bugfix beta version 2.614 of PMX to > >http://www.icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmx2614.zip > >This fixes a bug discovered by Terry Enger. It was quite a remarkable catch, >and reminded me of the PMX bugs that Werner was so adept at finding. It >depended on having all the following conditions: A (1) rest that was (2) >lowered and (3) dotted, followed by (4) a single note, followed by (5) two >beamed notes, with (6) all of the above occurring in the same notes group, >i.e., without any change in horizontal spacing increment \noteskip! I still >don't understand precisely what was happening, but it was caused by PMX >putting the rest and dot together in an hbox, when the rest itself was >already automatically in an hbox. The basic error would be seen in the first >bar of the following file, which also shows how the revised algorithm tweaks >dot heights depending on whether the dot would hit a staff line. > >I've also included a new pmx.tex, which only differs from the previous one >in that I've commented out some definitions of dotted rests that are no >longer needed. But this means if you replace your working version of pmx.tex >with the new one, then you won't be able to activate the error by processing >the file as normal; you'd have to make the prior pmx.tex the active one. > >Test PMX file for raised, dotted rests: >+ >1 1 2 4 2 4 0 -3 >1 3 20 .1 >Cello >b >./ >r1-4d gd [ dd ed f8 ] / >m10/4/10/4 >r2 r2-2 r2+2 r2-8 r2+8 / >m5454 >r4 r4-2 r4+2 r4-8 r4+8 / >m6262 >rd4-2 rd4-3 rd4-8 rd4-9 rd4+2 rd4+3 rd4+8 rd4+9 / >m7272 >rdd4-2 rdd4-3 rdd4-8 rdd4-9 rdd4+2 rdd4+3 rdd4+8 rdd4+9 / >m3232 >rd8-2 rd8-3 rd8-8 rd8-9 rd8+2 rd8+3 rd8+8 rd8+9 / >m3434 >rd1-2 rd1-3 rd1-8 rd1-9 rd1+2 rd1+3 rd1+8 rd1+9 / >m3838 >rd3-2 rd3-3 rd3-8 rd3-9 rd3+2 rd3+3 rd3+8 rd3+9 / >== > >--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 <>--- 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] New beta of PMX (2.614)
I've just uploaded a bugfix beta version 2.614 of PMX to http://www.icking-music-archive.org/software/pmx/pmx2614.zip This fixes a bug discovered by Terry Enger. It was quite a remarkable catch, and reminded me of the PMX bugs that Werner was so adept at finding. It depended on having all the following conditions: A (1) rest that was (2) lowered and (3) dotted, followed by (4) a single note, followed by (5) two beamed notes, with (6) all of the above occurring in the same notes group, i.e., without any change in horizontal spacing increment \noteskip! I still don't understand precisely what was happening, but it was caused by PMX putting the rest and dot together in an hbox, when the rest itself was already automatically in an hbox. The basic error would be seen in the first bar of the following file, which also shows how the revised algorithm tweaks dot heights depending on whether the dot would hit a staff line. I've also included a new pmx.tex, which only differs from the previous one in that I've commented out some definitions of dotted rests that are no longer needed. But this means if you replace your working version of pmx.tex with the new one, then you won't be able to activate the error by processing the file as normal; you'd have to make the prior pmx.tex the active one. Test PMX file for raised, dotted rests: + 1 1 2 4 2 4 0 -3 1 3 20 .1 Cello b ./ r1-4d gd [ dd ed f8 ] / m10/4/10/4 r2 r2-2 r2+2 r2-8 r2+8 / m5454 r4 r4-2 r4+2 r4-8 r4+8 / m6262 rd4-2 rd4-3 rd4-8 rd4-9 rd4+2 rd4+3 rd4+8 rd4+9 / m7272 rdd4-2 rdd4-3 rdd4-8 rdd4-9 rdd4+2 rdd4+3 rdd4+8 rdd4+9 / m3232 rd8-2 rd8-3 rd8-8 rd8-9 rd8+2 rd8+3 rd8+8 rd8+9 / m3434 rd1-2 rd1-3 rd1-8 rd1-9 rd1+2 rd1+3 rd1+8 rd1+9 / m3838 rd3-2 rd3-3 rd3-8 rd3-9 rd3+2 rd3+3 rd3+8 rd3+9 / == --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
