Ooops, that was in Oslo, Norway, not Sweden...
> Le 18 avr. 2018 à 21:47, Jacques Menu Muzhic a écrit :
>
> In compiler technology, ‘object code’ refers to the code generated by a
> compiler, containing the same semantical information as the ’source code’
> that has been compiled, but in a for
In compiler technology, ‘object code’ refers to the code generated by a
compiler, containing the same semantical information as the ’source code’ that
has been compiled, but in a form better suited for the task at hand. Quite
often, the goal is execution by a physical or virtual processor.
This
On 4/18/18, 6:51 AM, "Robert Hickman" wrote:
If lilypond is based on a functional interface, the documentation
making extensive use of the terms 'object' and 'interface' is
confusing.
Patches to documentation will be reviewed.
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/cont
>> Can you suggest a better word to describe all the various things on
>> a page of musical notation (e.g., note head, flag, rest, stem, dot,
>> slur, etc.)?
>
> No, but classifying it to say 'not related to OOP' would have avoided
> the confusion.
Yes, a remark into this direction should be add
> Can you suggest a better word to describe all the various things on a page of
> musical notation (e.g., note head, flag, rest, stem, dot, slur, etc.)?
No, but classifying it to say 'not related to OOP' would have avoided
the confusion.
I think my main point of confusion related to the term 'in
Robert Hickman writes:
> If lilypond is based on a functional interface, the documentation
> making extensive use of the terms 'object' and 'interface' is
> confusing.
LilyPond is not "based on a functional interface". If you have concrete
examples of where the documentation rather than your pr
Hi Robert,
> If lilypond is based on a functional interface, the documentation
> making extensive use of the terms 'object' and 'interface' is confusing.
Can you suggest a better word to describe all the various things on a page of
musical notation (e.g., note head, flag, rest, stem, dot, slur,
If lilypond is based on a functional interface, the documentation
making extensive use of the terms 'object' and 'interface' is
confusing.
On 18 April 2018 at 13:35, Andrew Bernard wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> Having just learned ABC, I see that it supports rolls, but not all the
> Larsen ornament not
Robert Hickman writes:
> You are largely missing the point I was trying to make, however I have
> a lot of work to do and cannot be bothered to argue.
Good start.
> On 18 April 2018 at 13:24, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
>> So? What are you hoping to gain by lecturing everyone how bad LilyPon
Hi Robert,
EasyABC, the one I am using, is open source. Would you like me to
investigate?
I think we are probably off topic by now.
Andrew
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Hi Robert,
Having just learned ABC, I see that it supports rolls, but not all the
Larsen ornament notation. I see no reason why ABC can't be extended - there
are many, dozens in fact, ABC editors that are open source. Worth looking
into. It you can produce a trill in ABC, you can produce a cut.
A
You are largely missing the point I was trying to make, however I have
a lot of work to do and cannot be bothered to argue.
On 18 April 2018 at 13:24, David Kastrup wrote:
> Robert Hickman writes:
>
>> The best example of the leaky abstraction problem I can think of right
>> now are actually vis
Robert Hickman writes:
> The best example of the leaky abstraction problem I can think of right
> now are actually visual HTML editors.
That's more in line of complaining about Denemo than LilyPond. Either
way the solution lies in not confusing the editor's domain with the the
result domain.
>
The best example of the leaky abstraction problem I can think of right
now are actually visual HTML editors. HTML is very complicated and
follows a 'WYSIWYM' model similar to LaTeX, however the visual editors
try to force this into a 'WYSIWYG' model which simply does not work,
especially when respo
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Hello Robert,
>
> Speaking as a programmer myself with over forty years of experience,
> and an advanced lilypond users, I can categorically assert that
> lilypond is not trying to be 'clever'. This is an utter
> misunderstanding. Lilypond is however trying to engrave mus
Hello Robert,
Speaking as a programmer myself with over forty years of experience, and an
advanced lilypond users, I can categorically assert that lilypond is not
trying to be 'clever'. This is an utter misunderstanding. Lilypond is
however trying to engrave music to the highest possible standard,
Robert Hickman writes:
>> Trying to understand LilyPond syntax based on how it actually
>> processes input is not likely to make learning easy since a lot of
>> complicated mechanisms work behind the scenes in order to make things
>> look easy.
>
> In my general experience, systems which try to b
> Trying to understand LilyPond syntax based on how
> it actually processes input is not likely to make learning easy since a
> lot of complicated mechanisms work behind the scenes in order to make
> things look easy.
In my general experience, systems which try to be cleaver and are not
explicit a
Robert Hickman writes:
>> That's not Lisp/Scheme syntax but LilyPond syntax. There is a
>> manual for it. Several, in fact.
>
> I'm aware.
>
> \context {
> \Staff
> \omit TimeSignature
> }
>
> If I'm understanding this correctly, this would be written something
> like the following in a typ
> That's not Lisp/Scheme syntax but LilyPond syntax. There is a manual for it.
> Several, in fact.
I'm aware.
\context {
\Staff
\omit TimeSignature
}
If I'm understanding this correctly, this would be written something
like the following in a typical OO syntax:
x = Staff.clone();
x.omit
Robert Hickman writes:
> Thanks, I have a vague familiarity with lisps, but have never used scheme.
>
> I'm not certain how to visually parse a statment like \Staff \omit
> TimeSignature. It kind of looks like \Staff is a function taking two
> arguments, where \omit is either a constant or a func
Thanks, I have a vague familiarity with lisps, but have never used scheme.
I'm not certain how to visually parse a statment like \Staff \omit
TimeSignature. It kind of looks like \Staff is a function taking two
arguments, where \omit is either a constant or a function that returns
a constant, and
Hi Robert,
As I mentioned and others have said, there is no substitute for studying
the NR and the Learning Manual, in detail, exhaustively. It's a powerful
program with enormous control, unlike typical GUI programs. It's no
different to learning to play tin whistle. Nobody would expect to learn i
2018-04-17 0:24 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley :
> 2018-04-16 23:23 GMT+02:00 foxfanfare :
>
>> *OMG, my first comment which isn't aimed to ask for help but "try" to help
>> someone else :-)
>
> lol
>
> More seriously, your help is very appropriated!
Forgive me, this should read "very appreciated"
Non-na
2018-04-16 23:23 GMT+02:00 foxfanfare :
> *OMG, my first comment which isn't aimed to ask for help but "try" to help
> someone else :-)
lol
More seriously, your help is very appropriated!
Best,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.
Robert Hickman wrote
> Works correctly, I found variations on the following with google, which
> was
> giving a syntax error:
>
> \context { \Staff \omit TimeSignature}
If I understood correctly, this syntax is good, but works for the layout
block as a "global" preset.
\omit Staff.TimeSignature
On 16.04.2018 20:50, Robert Hickman wrote:
\omit Staff.TimeSignature
Works correctly, I found variations on the following with google,
which was giving a syntax error:
\context { \Staff \omit TimeSignature }
I'm finding it quite difficult to find out how to do what I want to do
with lilypon
\omit Staff.TimeSignature
Works correctly, I found variations on the following with google, which was
giving a syntax error:
\context { \Staff \omit TimeSignature}
I'm finding it quite difficult to find out how to do what I want to do with
lilypond.
On 16 April 2018 at 19:43, Malte Meyn wro
Am 16.04.2018 um 20:39 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
On 16.04.2018 20:05, Robert Hickman wrote:
So far I have the result attached, which is close to what I want, but
I haven't found a clear example of how to get the two text annotations
to align vertically.
Try overriding TextScript.staff-padding
On 16.04.2018 20:05, Robert Hickman wrote:
So far I have the result attached, which is close to what I want, but
I haven't found a clear example of how to get the two text annotations
to align vertically.
Try overriding TextScript.staff-padding – which will also move them up
at appropriate va
So far I have the result attached, which is close to what I want, but I
haven't found a clear example of how to get the two text annotations to
align vertically. I'd also like to move both up a bit.
If possible I also want to pad the gap between the first note and the bar,
so it is the same as the
31 matches
Mail list logo
