Re: score as footnote/footer

Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:12:55 +0200 > From: Simon Albrecht > To: Kieren MacMillan , bart deruyter > > Cc: Lilypond-User Mailing List > Subject: Re: score as

Re: score as footnote/footer

Hi Simon, > This isn’t about any markup but about footnotes, whose placement is, as David > said, hardcoded. Ah! My apologies. Still, what the OP wants can be done, with just a little layout-fragility: simply pile all three footnotes into Footnote #1, and then code Footnotes #2 and #3 with

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

> And how many *programmers* actually bother to check compilation logs and fix > problems that are thrown up? If you want strict error handling then add a > --werror option to lilypond that just says "crash on error and let make > handle it", then those people using make can deal with the lack

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

> And secondly, to me it seems clear why the error is termed "fatal" - the > parser aborted. You don't want a compilation error to return a fatal error to > "make" and, because it receives a fatal error, make throws a fatal error and > crashes too, do you? The question is WHERE in the stack do

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On 18/04/2016 22:01, Sharon Rosner wrote: Lilypond would expectedly complain about line 2, then proceed to put together the PDF file and finally exit with a “fatal error”. The PDF File would include 2 scores, so that means right after encountering the syntax error on line 2, it continued to

Re: score as footnote/footer

On 18.04.2016 15:21, Kieren MacMillan wrote: Hi Bart, On Apr 17, 2016, at 2:27 PM, bart deruyter wrote: Back then it was not possible to get the scores horizontally next to each other. Really? I would have thought \markup { \line { \score { c' } \score

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

>> If compiling the file has failed to such a degree that we are choosing >> to call it a "fatal error," that means the PDF is *not* suitable for >> further use. Conversely, if you think the generated PDF is still >> useful, then don't call what happened a "fatal error" - it must have >> really

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On Mon 18 Apr 2016 at 09:06:47 (+0200), Stephan Neuhaus wrote: > On 2016-04-17 13:51, Urs Liska wrote: > >Am 17.04.2016 um 04:29 schrieb David Wright: > >>I think a better analogy than compilers writing programs would be > >>browsers rendering web pages. Can you imagine a WWW where malformed >

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hi Phil, > >> \layout { >> \context { >> \Score >> \remove Mark_engraver >> } >> \context { >> \Staff >> \consists Mark_engraver >> } >> } > > Ah, yes… that would work in that one place. > But in this

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, David Kastrup wrote: > msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes: > > If compiling the file has failed to such a degree that we are choosing > > to call it a "fatal error," that means the PDF is *not* suitable for > > further use. Conversely, if you think the generated PDF is still > >

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca writes: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, David Wright wrote: >> may be a decision that a machine can make, but whether a PDF is >> suitable for further use (to debug the source code, give to a player, >> or admire on the coffee table) is not. > > If compiling the file has failed to

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Hi Phil, > \layout { > \context { > \Score > \remove Mark_engraver > } > \context { > \Staff > \consists Mark_engraver > } > } Ah, yes… that would work in that one place. But in this particular score, I’ve got lots of other marks that might/would get messed up

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Hi David, > Well, I don't think that time signatures would be able to take text > scripts but you can modify their grob: Lovely solution — many thanks. Cheers, Kieren. Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email:

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Hi Abraham, >> Did I miss something? > Other than putting \global in-line with each part... ;-) HA! =) > On a more serious note, I wonder if it is possible to re-assign the > TextScript parent? Or, add the TextScript as a child of the TimeSignature? I, too, am curious about that. > David's

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, David Wright wrote: > may be a decision that a machine can make, but whether a PDF is > suitable for further use (to debug the source code, give to a player, > or admire on the coffee table) is not. If compiling the file has failed to such a degree that we are choosing to

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n189714...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Hi Abraham, > > > Give this one a try: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=433 > > I don’t think TextScript has break-alignment possibilities: >

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On Mon 18 Apr 2016 at 03:23:31 (-0500), msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sharon Rosner wrote: > > I’m not saying that lilypond’s behaviour is necessarily wrong. I’m just > > trying to point out, like others have, that the term “fatal error” would > > normally mean that the

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

- Original Message - From: Kieren MacMillan To: Lilypond-User Mailing List Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:30 PM Subject: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff],or attach to TimeSignature Hello all, I have a score where (e.g.) a 12/8 measure is broken up in

"lilypond for programmers" untutorial, inviting comments

Dear all, I thought I should not just ask naively and complain loudly, but also contribute something. So I made an attempt at explaining (the basics, as I see them, of) "lilypond for programmers" http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/etc/untutorial/lilypond/ ("un-tutorial" in the sense that

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Kieren MacMillan writes: > Hello all, > > I have a score where (e.g.) a 12/8 measure is broken up in different ways > depending on the staff (see attached screenshot). > > Currently, I’m coding this as a \markup on the first note, and then using > #'X-offset to

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Hi Abraham, > Give this one a try: http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=433 I don’t think TextScript has break-alignment possibilities: http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/internals/textscript And as a RehearsalMark, that will fail to do what I’m hoping (which is different markings for

Re: can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Kieren, On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan [via Lilypond] < ml-node+s1069038n189712...@n5.nabble.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a score where (e.g.) a 12/8 measure is broken up in different ways > depending on the staff (see attached screenshot). > > Currently, I’m coding

can \markup behave like \mark [on a single staff], or attach to TimeSignature

Hello all, I have a score where (e.g.) a 12/8 measure is broken up in different ways depending on the staff (see attached screenshot). Currently, I’m coding this as a \markup on the first note, and then using #'X-offset to align it to the time signature. But this requires trial-and-error, and

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

David Wright writes: > On Mon 18 Apr 2016 at 14:59:14 (+0200), Johan Vromans wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:02:30 +0200 >> David Kastrup wrote: >> >> > I recommend taking a look at \resetRelativeOctave instead. If you write >> > >> >

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

On Mon 18 Apr 2016 at 14:59:14 (+0200), Johan Vromans wrote: > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:02:30 +0200 > David Kastrup wrote: > > > I recommend taking a look at \resetRelativeOctave instead. If you write > > > > \resetRelativeOctave a'' > > Why is that reset, and not set? You either

Re: score as footnote/footer

Hi Bart, On Apr 17, 2016, at 2:27 PM, bart deruyter wrote: > Back then it was not possible to get the scores horizontally next to each > other. Really? I would have thought \markup { \line { \score { c' } \score { d' } \score { e' } } } would have

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:02:30 +0200 David Kastrup wrote: > I recommend taking a look at \resetRelativeOctave instead. If you write > > \resetRelativeOctave a'' Why is that reset, and not set? You either reset something, or set it to a value. \setRelativeOctave a'' makes more

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

> > ... since this is a regular source of confusion, > You are the first to have complained. This is similar, I think: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2015-11/msg00282.html - J.W. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

Works like a charm. Thank you very much! Cheers, Leszek. On 18 April 2016 at 11:02, David Kastrup wrote: > Leszek Wroński writes: > > > Guys, > > > > if you do this: > > > > \relative c'' {a \absolute {a''} b} > > > > > > then you jump up an octave and down a

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

Leszek Wroński writes: > Guys, > > if you do this: > > \relative c'' {a \absolute {a''} b} > > > then you jump up an octave and down a seventh. Now, suppose you want the > notes AFTER the absolute one 'borrow' the pitch from it, so that in my > example the 'b' would actually be

Re: 'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

At 10:49 on 18 Apr 2016, Leszek Wroński wrote: >Guys, > >if you do this: > >\relative c'' {a \absolute {a''} b} > > >then you jump up an octave and down a seventh. Now, suppose you want >the notes AFTER the absolute one 'borrow' the pitch from it, so that >in my example the 'b' would actually be

'absolute' pitches do not influence 'relative' ones

Guys, if you do this: \relative c'' {a \absolute {a''} b} then you jump up an octave and down a seventh. Now, suppose you want the notes AFTER the absolute one 'borrow' the pitch from it, so that in my example the 'b' would actually be absolute b''. How would one do this without creating a new

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On Mon, 18 Apr 2016, Sharon Rosner wrote: > I’m not saying that lilypond’s behaviour is necessarily wrong. I’m just > trying to point out, like others have, that the term “fatal error” would > normally mean that the program was unable to continue processing. I run Lilypond in Make, like a

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

Thanks Thomas, > We do this already, (but see below for multi-file-compilation). Ok, that's good. > Actually, we have even more fine-grained errors/warnings/messages. > But if any problem causes an _error_ of any kind (not a warning), > even a non_fatal_error, LilyPond throws a fatal error

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

Am 17.04.2016 um 22:16 schrieb David Kastrup: > We are not talking about "nothing was produced" since LilyPond can't > change the past. will be > The demand rather boils down to "if LilyPond has > already successfully produced anything, that should not be left > available and the PDF should

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

>> If we can further pinpoint the discussion, given the current way lilypond >> handles parsing (or other) errors, what *is* the meaning of 'fatal error'? > > An error leading to a fatal error message and a non-zero exit status > because LilyPond does not see fit to deal with the input properly.

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

On 2016-04-17 13:51, Urs Liska wrote: Am 17.04.2016 um 04:29 schrieb David Wright: I think a better analogy than compilers writing programs would be browsers rendering web pages. Can you imagine a WWW where malformed pages produced a few error messages on the screen and nothing else? No, we

Re: Lilypond error behaviour

2016-04-18 1:26 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley : > 2016-04-17 21:01 GMT+02:00 Noeck : > >> IMHO, it would make sense to [...] have 3 categories: >> - warning: user, please look at this >> - error: this is severe, there is something definitely wrong, but >>