Augmentation dots reg test

I have worked some more on the augmentation dot algorithms, including adding the directions (/DotsUp, /DotsDown). I would like your opinion on whether the attached regression test, which is different from the current development regression tests, is correct. I think it is, but I'd like your

Re: Changing voice order...

On Oct 28, 2016, at 03:51 , David Kastrup wrote: > At any rate, does that mean that you are fine with > > << \sopranoI \\ \alto \\ \sopranoII >> > > and > > << \sopranoI \\ \altoII \\ \sopranoII \\ \altoI >> > > because that is what we currently have? Until I read this thread,

Re: Optional chords

Thank you all for the replies. Problem solved. Best regards -- herbert.liec...@thinx.ch, ThinX AG, Bielstrasse 69, CH-4500 Solothurn Tel +41 (0)32 623 81 66, Mobile +41 (0)76 334 81 66, http://www.thinx.ch ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

Btw, having the new list syntax in mind I wondered whether this would work in recent development versions: \compoundMeter 4/4,1/3 But it does not the 4/4 translates to (4 . 4) and not (4 4). \compoundMeter (4,4),(1,3) does not work either. Can this list syntax be grouped somehow? I mean in a way

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

On Fri 28 Oct 2016 at 11:22:00 (-0700), Tobin Chodos wrote: > Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to > define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3? That is, the > measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note. Isn't this just

Re: Changing voice order...

Am 28/10/16 um 11:01 schrieb David Kastrup: Robert Schmaus writes: Hi everyone, I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now. But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the code_ to match the vertical arrangement

Re: compound time signature with non duple denominator

> Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way > to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3? That is, > the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note. Hi Tobin, this is definitely a valid question for this list! This snippet will

Re: Changing voice order...

Am 28. Oktober 2016 10:52:08 GMT-07:00, schrieb tisimst : >I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here. > >I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the >current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is >the

compound time signature with non duple denominator

Hi all, Forgive me if this is a too-easy issue for the list, but: is there a way to define a time compound time signature such as 4/4 + 1/3? That is, the measure is four quarter notes long plus one triplet eighth note. Thanks. Tobin Chodos ___

Re: Changing voice order...

I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion here. I tend to engrave piano music more often than not and I don't mind the current syntax. The only thing that I'd rather like seeing improved is the nesting of the voices rests. Rests tend to get pushed out of the center and away from the

Re: Changing voice order...

On 2016-10-28 14:52, David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Kobel writes: What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top? I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations. That makes it

Re: Changing voice order...

Alexander Kobel writes: > What about \voiceUp and \voiceDown? Where the former are > counted from top to bottom, and the latter from bottom to top? I prefer it if a LilyPond source is readable without explanations. That makes it much easier to learn by example and feel

Re: Optional chords

Herbert Liechti wrote: In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to play when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an alternative to the standard chords. For a quick pointer to an old

Re: Changing voice order...

Hi all, > On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote: >> I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should >> have been from the start. > > DAYMAKER! Agreed. I love this. =) As for the voice order, I think if possible it should be "top-down”. I’m mulling over the

Re: Changing voice order...

On 10/27/2016 4:38 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > I am a radical conservative: I want to keep everything the way it should > have been from the start. DAYMAKER! I'm watching this voice-order discussion closely. I have no position on how LilyPond should work with this. I've been using it for less

Re: Optional chords

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 11:56 +0100, Richard Shann wrote: > On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Herbert Liechti wrote: > > Hi > > > > > > In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the > > attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to > > play when doing

Re: Optional chords

Hi Herbert, several years ago, someone in the German lilypond forum posted a solution: http://www.lilypondforum.de/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=54 This can easily be adjusted to draw parentheses only on the left or right side: %

Re: Changing voice order...

On 2016-10-28 12:31, David Kastrup wrote: Alexander Kobel writes: On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote: The majority tends to be silent. Minority report out of the silent majority: I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you internalized the

Re: Optional chords

On Fri, 2016-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Herbert Liechti wrote: > Hi > > > In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the > attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to > play when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an > alternative to the

Re: Changing voice order...

Alexander Kobel writes: > On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote: >> The majority tends to be silent. > > Minority report out of the silent majority: > I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you > internalized the meaning of \voice. Well, walking on

Re: Changing voice order...

"Mark Stephen Mrotek" writes: > David, > > If " Generally users don't know the proper order of voice arranging > commands" would that not be the fault of those who do not read the > manual? Well, I write the manual more than I read it. Nevertheless I prefer it if reading

Re: Changing voice order...

Robert Schmaus writes: > Hi everyone, > > I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it > now. > > But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the > code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and >

Re: Changing voice order...

Dan Eble writes: > On Oct 27, 2016, at 09:54 , David Kastrup wrote: >> >> << \context Voice = "1" \with \voiceThree ... >> \context Voice = "2" \with \voiceOne ... >> \context Voice = "3" \with \voiceTwo ... >> \context Voice = "4" \with \voiceFour ... > >

Re: Changing voice order...

On 2016-10-27 23:38, David Kastrup wrote: The majority tends to be silent. Minority report out of the silent majority: I got used to the status quo, which is totally natural once you internalized the meaning of \voice. Hardly use it, though, but that's a different story. I agree with you

Optional chords

Hi In Jazz notation you find often chords symbol in parenthesis (see the attached picture for an example). It this case it indicates what to play when doing a turnaround in other cases it indicates an alternative to the standard chords. Is there a way to do that in lilypond? If found no hints in

Re: Changing voice order...

Hi everyone, I've never used implicit voice assignment and I doubt I will start with it now. But since there's no real need for the ordering of voices _in the code_ to match the vertical arrangement of the _engraved_ notes (and isn't that also, what Lilypond is all about? You specify the

Re: Changing voice order...

> > I respect your right to disagree. > > Yet,1, 2, 3 stem up, 2, 4, 6 stem down? Not, as they say, rocket > > science. > > Actually 1, 3, 5 stem up. > > So not rocket science, but tricky to remember :-) Which kind of prooves the point I was trying to make :-) Kind regards, Michael --