Reviewers: carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, Neil Puttock,
http://codereview.appspot.com/970044/diff/1/2
File Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/970044/diff/1/2#oldcode38
Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely:38: * Music function
syn
-Eluze wrote:
>
>
> Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, do you have any idea how I can override the header and paper blocks
>> in a
>> global init file?
>>
>>
> i have copied the whole init.ly to myInit.ly and then added *\include
> "myPaper.ly"* right after the \maininput line (nr. 25
Am Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 12:01:14 schrieb -Eluze:
> -Eluze wrote:
> > Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> >> So, do you have any idea how I can override the header and paper blocks
> >> in a
> >> global init file?
> >
> > i have copied the whole init.ly to myInit.ly and then added *\include
> > "myPa
David Kastrup:
> Graham Percival writes:
...
> And what if you see \chordmode { c,4:1/c c g,:1/g c } in the input
> (which is basically how you put bass notes in now if you really must)?
...
For the simple chords c\maj c\dim c\maj7 etc. could suffice.
For more complex chords one could extend the
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:33:42PM +0200, Karl Hammar wrote:
> David Kastrup:
> > Graham Percival writes:
> ...
> > And what if you see \chordmode { c,4:1/c c g,:1/g c } in the input
> > (which is basically how you put bass notes in now if you really must)?
> ...
>
> For the simple chords c\maj c
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> But I think we could use ; in LilyPond, even though it's used for comments
> in Scheme, because the ; inside a scheme function aren't interpreted by the
> LilyPond parser, IIUC.
I like ';' very much (mostly because it feels familiar when yo
> >
I like this
> c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
I like this too.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 4/29/10 1:42 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Carl,
> you didn't "reply to all", but here's my response anyway:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to not reply to all. Thanks for covering for
me.
> - Mark
>
>
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> I disagree with the idea that the simplest solution is to
>>
Sending to list for completeness.
On 4/28/10 12:39 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> It struck me that there are more options for dealing with
> the "\relative inside \repeat" issue. Can someone look over
> this to make sure I'm not doing anything sacrililygious?
In my opinion, the tone of your add
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
> write
>
> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' { c2 d }
>
> or
>
> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {
> c2 d
> }
>
> but back when the GDP was
I like the new suggestions. Just a couple of comments.
http://codereview.appspot.com/970044/diff/1/2
File Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/970044/diff/1/2#oldcode38
Documentation/extending/programming-interface.itely:38: * Music function
On 4/29/10 7:12 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote:
>
>
>>>
>
> I like this
Why instead of ?
>
>> c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
>
> I like this too.
I think I really like this. It allows a transparent definition of what is
meant by a chord that is really easy to override.
But we'll need to be s
>>
>> I like this
>
> Why instead of ?
Honestly, I'm just looking at the syntax form, not how to use it. It
simply looks good to me from a syntactical point of view. Whether
it's praktical or not, I don't know. I've never used chord mode.
Werner
___
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> >
>
> I like this
>
>> c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
>
> I like this too.
It is not clear to me how this would extend to
\chordmode {
c1:7+ c:5+.3- c:3-.5-.7-
}
\chordmode {
c1:sus c:sus2 c:sus4 c:5.4^3
}
\chordmode {
c1 c/g
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 4/29/10 7:12 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I like this
>
> Why instead of ?
Because requires less brain than what it would need to be.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-dev
---
lily/parser.yy |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lily/parser.yy b/lily/parser.yy
index 99e15a4..ac0d357 100644
--- a/lily/parser.yy
+++ b/lily/parser.yy
@@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ function_scm_argument:
;
/* An argument list. If a function \foo exp
Dear list,
does lilypond have something "No tonality at all" switch which ensures no
key signature at all is printed in a situation like this:
<<
\crazyatonalmusic
\tranpose c fis \crazyatonalmusic
???
I am getting 6 flats for this, which is not useful since crazyatonalmusic
wants to
On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>>
>> I like this
>>
>>> c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
>>
>> I like this too.
>
> It is not clear to me how this would extend to
>
> \chordmode {
>c1:7+ c:5+.3- c:3-.5-.7-
> }
\relative c' {
c1\c
2010/4/29 Arno Waschk :
> Dear list,
>
> does lilypond have something "No tonality at all" switch which
> ensures no key signature at all is printed in a situation like this:
>
>
> <<
> \crazyatonalmusic
> \tranpose c fis \crazyatonalmusic
> >>
Hi,
Did you specify explicitly a key signature in "
On 4/29/10 10:17 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>
>
>>>
>>> I like this
>>>
c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
>>>
>>> I like this too.
>
> Or, when we define \sus4 to be equivalent to \chord #'(1 4 5), e
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Have you tested your patch with other PDF viewers to verify that the
> behavior is not worse with them?
I've tested with Foxit Reader and Adobe Reader. The behavior with Foxit is
improved; Lilypond can overwrite the PDF, though Foxit does
Hi,
I am currently reworking the markup command parsing. We have something
like
The available combinations of arguments (after the standard @var{layout}
and @var{props} arguments) to a markup command defined with
@code{define-markup-command} are limited as follows.
@table @asis
@item (no argum
Le 29 avr. 2010 à 20:27, David Kastrup a écrit :
> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>
> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
> markup in the arguments. Anything else?
I'd say,
Graham:
...
> OTOH, what about doing something like this:
> c\maj
> c\dim
> c\chord #'(1 4 5)
> c\chord #'(1 3 5 7 11)
I like this.
Regards,
/Karl Hammar
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/lis
Am Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 22:20:27 schrieb Karl Hammar:
> Graham:
> ...
>
> > OTOH, what about doing something like this:
> > c\maj
> > c\dim
We already have \dim for text diminuendo...
Cheers,
Reinhold
--
--
Reinhold Kain
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:11:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
> Speaking of which, I often wished we had a cool shortcut for writing
> repeats using a postfix syntax, e.g.
> { large music expression here };4
> instead of
> \repeat unfold 4 { large music expression }
That would already be han
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> But we'll need to be sure it handles things like
>
> c\chord #'(1 3- 5-)
Hmm. Might we need
c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--)
? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of chords that
includes doubly-augmented intervals relative to
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> > It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
> > voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
> > preferable to me. Making chordmode and musicmode less
On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> But we'll need to be sure it handles things like
>>
>> c\chord #'(1 3- 5-)
>
> Hmm. Might we need
> c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--)
> ? I'm not prepared to claim that there's no theory of
On 29 April 2010 21:36, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:11:13PM +0200, Valentin Villenave wrote:
>> Speaking of which, I often wished we had a cool shortcut for writing
>> repeats using a postfix syntax, e.g.
>> { large music expression here };4
>> instead of
>> \repeat unfold
On 4/29/10 2:48 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17:51AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 4/29/10 9:29 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
>>> It's nice, but a single mode where the full power of
>>> voicing _and_ chords is available similarly convenient would be
>>>
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> >> c\chord #'(4 1 3 5)
> >
> > I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1.
>
> I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I can easily parse that so that
> steps that come before 1
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 08:55:13AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> But we'll need to be sure it handles things like
>>>
>>> c\chord #'(1 3- 5-)
>>
>> Hmm. Might we need
>> c\chord #'(1 3++ 7--)
>> ? I'm not prepared
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 03:02:08PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> OK. I guess I was looking at this as a step to eliminating the *need* for
> chordmode and deprecating it (as was suggested by David originally). Of
> course chordmode won't be eliminated until 3.0 (because we're in a syntax
> fre
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 11:14:43PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
> > There is at least one common chord that uses doubly altered steps: the
> > dim7 chord, which uses a double-flatted 7th., along with a minor thrd
> > and a diminished fifth. So yes, we do need to allow at
Hi all,
> It's not obvious to me whether
> c\chord #'(1 7)
> should produce "c b" or "c bes". Musically speaking, I'd look at
> the key signature; if it were c major, I would assume it meant
> "c b" since "b" is the seventh note of the scale.
>
> This may be a problem for the numeric syntax. I
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 05:27:36PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> > It's not obvious to me whether
> > c\chord #'(1 7)
> > should produce "c b" or "c bes". Musically speaking, I'd look at
>
> Or... we could use dodecaphonic intervals, i.e.
>
> c\chord #'(1 11) is a minor sevent
On 4/29/10 3:12 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 02:51:59PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> On 4/29/10 2:42 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>>
c\chord #'(4 1 3 5)
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely comfortable about have 4 1.
>>
>> I'm totally comfortable with #'(4 1 3 5). I
On 4/29/10 3:35 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 05:27:36PM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>>
> OTOH, most people writing chords just think/say "add a 7th", not
> "add an 11th". Or rather, when they say "add an 11th", they're
> not talking about semitones.
And when the
On 2010/04/29 07:13:18, Mark Polesky wrote:
There aren't that many other predicates out there (see
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-08/msg00713.html).
And I'm happy to add the remaining ones to the alist if
that will justify using the word "complete". (:
As Carl's poin
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/956051/diff/1/3
File lily/slur-scoring.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/956051/diff/1/3#newcode86
lily/slur-scoring.cc:86: Slur_score_state::slur_direction (Grob *me)
const
Do you need to pass `me' here? Isn't it the same as slur_?
http://coderevie
LGTM
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 12:42 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> ---
> lily/parser.yy | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lily/parser.yy b/lily/parser.yy
> index 99e15a4..ac0d357 100644
> --- a/lily/parser.yy
> +++ b/lily/parser.yy
> @@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@
Hi Graham,
> And have you decided whether this should just go in the
> @knownissues on that page, or should it be a separate section?
I think it should be in the @knownissues.
> That's just it -- there isn't anybody to guide you gently into
> that good night. The only clue I know about the IR i
Reviewers: Neil Puttock,
http://codereview.appspot.com/956051/diff/1/3
File lily/slur-scoring.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/956051/diff/1/3#newcode86
lily/slur-scoring.cc:86: Slur_score_state::slur_direction (Grob *me)
const
On 2010/04/29 22:40:10, Neil Puttock wrote:
Do you need t
On 4/27/10 10:49 PM, "Nathan Reed" wrote:
> Lilypond would attempt to delete the output PDF before overwriting it in
> Windows
> (but no other platforms). This is unnecessary and causes problems with
> certain
> PDF viewers, e.g. Sumatra, where the PDF is kept open in a way that allows
> overwri
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested,
> try the attached patch.
That's great! You might also want to include simultaneous music
(<<...>>*4). Thanks!
-Jay
___
lil
Jay Anderson writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> I'm afraid I couldn't resist testing this, so if you're interested,
>> try the attached patch.
>
> That's great! You might also want to include simultaneous music
> (<<...>>*4). Thanks!
Wouldn't that be a fourfold un
47 matches
Mail list logo
