Problem: Table of contents - a version conflict
Dear Marc,
Thanks for solving my problem. I upgraded my 2.14 version to 2.16 and
didn't notice that the manual was not upgraded at the same time - thus the
error in my syntax. Now all is back to normal again and I can relax and
enjoy a good
pabuhr writes:
> I've tried everything but I can't get the first bar without square brackets to
> look like the second bar with square brackets. Can someone make it so.
>
>
> \version "2.16.0"
> \language english
> #(set-global-staff-size 24)
>
> \score {
> <<
> \context Voice = one {
>
I've tried everything but I can't get the first bar without square brackets to
look like the second bar with square brackets. Can someone make it so.
\version "2.16.0"
\language english
#(set-global-staff-size 24)
\score {
<<
\context Voice = one {
\key g \major \time 4/4
Congratulations, Luca!
> I'm very happy to announce you that I've now finished my Ph.D.
> research project: the critical edition of Tommaso Traetta's
> /Enea nel Lazio/ (1760), a beautiful (and mastodontical) opera
> seria with libretto of Vittorio Amedeo Cigna
On 12-09-23 07:15 PM, Luca Rossetto Casel wrote:
Dear Lilyfriends,
I'm very happy to announce you that I've now finished my Ph.D.
research project: the critical edition of Tommaso Traetta's
/Enea nel Lazio/ (1760), a beautiful (and mastodontical) opera
Dear Lilyfriends,
I'm very happy to announce you that I've now finished my Ph.D.
research project: the critical edition of Tommaso Traetta's
/Enea nel Lazio/ (1760), a beautiful (and mastodontical) opera
seria with libretto of Vittorio Amedeo Cigna-S
Hi LilyPond coders,
I'm quite happy to tell you that I just finished a new version of my
'lilyglyphs' package. This is not a release, but just a progress from a
0.0.1 version to a 0.0.2, so don't expect anything polished here.
For those who missed the first announcement a few weeks ago: lilygly
Thank you for all your work on Frescobaldi. I really like the automatic
formatting and .pdf preview. It saves me a lot of time.
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/ANN-Frescobaldi-2-0-8-tp132939p133404.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
- Original Message -
From: "Helge Kruse"
To:
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2012 5:25 PM
Subject: Suppressing staff
Hello,
I have a piece for singer and piano. I want to write the notes for the
piano. The words should be written above the piano notes as the would
appear when the sing
Marc Hohl writes:
> Ok, that's another possibility – *if* we could use variable names like
> em7, c7b5 and store chords in that, this would be even better, but
> this yields to yet another big amount of philosophical mails ;-)
It would make more sense to improve the configurability of chord
nota
Marc Hohl writes:
> Am 23.09.2012 14:40, schrieb James:
>>
>> From a novice's point of view q on the face of it is handy, but handy
>> in the sense that some of the LSR hacks are handy, it just seems so
>> unlike/inconsistent with any of the other commands we use in LP. I
>> don't personally have
Hello,
I have a piece for singer and piano. I want to write the notes for the
piano. The words should be written above the piano notes as the would
appear when the singer's staff is visible. But since the piano melody is
mostly the same as the singer's melody the singers staff should be
hidde
Am 23.09.2012 14:40, schrieb James:
Hello,
[...]
This construct doesn't allow for mixing single notes with
chords.
I see. Hmm...yes that's awkward.
There are instruments and music styles which greatly
benefit from having 'q' available, whereas others don't,
I write a lot of music for guitar
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2012/9/23 David Kastrup :
> [...]
>> I'd replace \once \override with \tweak and remove the = sign (untested
>> though). If it works, it takes less chances interfering with stuff
>> possibly happening at the same time. I haven't actually tried, so no
>> guarantee.
>
> Te
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> So, i still think that we shouldn't allow "c2 4 4" despite some
>>> really nice benefits it could bring us.
>>
>> Well, it won't affect previously valid programs. And it would have
>> some nice side effects, including
>>
>> c4~ | 1~ | 2.
>>
>> with or without bar ch
>> So, i still think that we shouldn't allow "c2 4 4" despite some
>> really nice benefits it could bring us.
>
> Well, it won't affect previously valid programs. And it would have
> some nice side effects, including
>
> c4~ | 1~ | 2.
>
> with or without bar checks or spaces, and reasonably st
2012/9/23 David Kastrup :
[...]
> I'd replace \once \override with \tweak and remove the = sign (untested
> though). If it works, it takes less chances interfering with stuff
> possibly happening at the same time. I haven't actually tried, so no
> guarantee.
Testing:
x =
#(define-music-function
Janek Warchoł writes:
>>> An example which shows that when you have shortcuts you don't even
>>> need functions for automated manipulation:
>>>
>>> bong = { q16 q q q q16 q8. }
>>> { 2 \bong 2 \bong 2 \bong }
>>
>> But bong does not include the original chord of the sequence.
>
> Is it bad that
Thomas Morley writes:
> \version "2.16.0"
>
> x =
> #(define-music-function (parser location rhythm)(ly:duration?)
> #{
> \once \override ChordName #'stencil =
> #(lambda (grob)
> (grob-interpret-markup grob (markup #:small "x")))
> r $rhythm
> #})
I'd repla
2012/9/22 Hartmut Leister :
> Hello everybody,
>
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 23:53 -0700 (PDT), eluze wrote:
>> since this is an English speaking list I reply in English
> Oh, I am sorry. I totally forgot about this.
>
>> for the first question you should have a look at
>> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/It
Am 23.09.2012 13:01, schrieb James:
Hello,
On 23 September 2012 09:34, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
Janek Warchoł writes:
However, the idea of creating another shortcut (p seems to be a good
name) appeals to me. I would design p to repeat cho
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> However, the idea of creating another shortcut (p seems to be a good
>> name) appeals to me. I would design p to repeat chords as well as
>> pitches.
>
> When writing c q p, what does p repeat and why?
i'd say t
On 23/09/12 17:12, TaoCG wrote:
> David Nalesnik-2 wrote
>> Here's my hack!
>>
>> A while back I was experimenting with defining new grobs, and a
>> chord-parenthesizer was one of them. It's based on a rewrite of
>> `arpeggio-engraver.cc' and incorporates material from `stencil.scm'
>> (to draw th
David Nalesnik-2 wrote
> Here's my hack!
>
> A while back I was experimenting with defining new grobs, and a
> chord-parenthesizer was one of them. It's based on a rewrite of
> `arpeggio-engraver.cc' and incorporates material from `stencil.scm'
> (to draw the parentheses) and uses the approach fo
24 matches
Mail list logo
