Re: Quoting music in ly:book-process

2012-09-30 Thread David Kastrup
Mark Witmer writes: > David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: >> you might consider rephrasing the ly:make-book >> call as #{ \book { ... } #} as well, peeling off another Scheme layer >> and leaving just ly:book-process. >> > > > Thanks! That did the trick. I'm glad to see this code works in 2.16.0; >

Re: Quoting music in ly:book-process

2012-09-30 Thread Mark Witmer
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes: > you might consider rephrasing the ly:make-book > call as #{ \book { ... } #} as well, peeling off another Scheme layer > and leaving just ly:book-process. > Thanks! That did the trick. I'm glad to see this code works in 2.16.0; putting \score inside of a scheme

Re: NR 3.5.7: the articulate script: why not suggesting two \score blocks?

2012-09-30 Thread Francisco Vila
2012/9/30 Federico Bruni : > In NR 3.5.7, The Articulate script: > > "After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily > altered, but the standard \midi block will produce a better MIDI file." > > This alteration refers to the use of \unfoldRepeats, I suppose. Not only because

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread Jean-Charles Malahieude
I can't vouch for Fedora since they have made it TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to figure out what versions of software they use. Going on their web page, you get just bounced from one buzzphrase page to another, and I was not going to download a whole distribution iso just to check what versions they migh

NR 3.5.7: the articulate script: why not suggesting two \score blocks?

2012-09-30 Thread Federico Bruni
In NR 3.5.7, The Articulate script: "After altering your input file this way, the visual output is heavily altered, but the standard \midi block will produce a better MIDI file." This alteration refers to the use of \unfoldRepeats, I suppose. Why don't we suggest to use two score blocks, one

Re: [musicxml2ly] unwanted staves and voices [was: missing -element in chorded note leads to unwanted additional staff]

2012-09-30 Thread pls
My test files obviously got lost. :( Am 29.09.2012 um 14:24 schrieb pls: > Sorry, this is killing me. :( > Am 29.09.2012 um 13:19 schrieb pls: > >> >> Am 28.09.2012 um 12:09 schrieb pls: >> >>> A -element containing a - and a -element but no >>> -element causes an additional empty staff above

[musicxml2ly] wrong durations in chorded notes with time-modifications

2012-09-30 Thread pls
Hey all, Sibelius 7.0.0 exports wrong duration values for chorded notes in tuplets. The exported value in this example (​https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrvdabwym9tezd0/time-modification_and_chorded_notes.xml) is 256 instead of 170 for a quarter note in a triplet of eighths (256). 170 is not an op

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread James
Hello, On 30 September 2012 13:39, David Kastrup wrote: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >>> Janek Warchoł writes: >>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. > [..

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread David Kastrup
Janek Warchoł writes: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Janek Warchoł writes: >> >>> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. [..] >>> >>> bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging the

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Janek Warchoł writes: > >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >>> What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. >>> [..] >> >> bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? > > What's wrong with bugging

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread David Kastrup
Janek Warchoł writes: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. >> [..] > > bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? What's wrong with bugging them? -- David Kastrup

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread Janek Warchoł
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 12:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > What is an issue is that nobody offers 2.16 yet. > [..] bah. Can we do something about it except for bugging them? Janek ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread David Kastrup
"Phil Holmes" writes: > "Eluze" wrote in message > news:1348959173728-133838.p...@n5.nabble.com... >> it's a shame - the LSR still works with an old stable version >> (actual stable >> is 2.16.0, LSR is 2.14.2) >> >> this means >> >> - new snippets using newer functions can't be added >> - old

Re: LSR is not at the stable release level

2012-09-30 Thread Phil Holmes
"Eluze" wrote in message news:1348959173728-133838.p...@n5.nabble.com... it's a shame - the LSR still works with an old stable version (actual stable is 2.16.0, LSR is 2.14.2) this means - new snippets using newer functions can't be added - old snippets must be convert.ly-ed before you can u