el 2019-02-19 a las 22:05 Thomas Morley escribió:
> You could even do:
>
> #(define-public (my-flag grob)
> ((straight-flag 0.4 1 -70 3 -70 3) grob))
>
> {
> \override Flag.stencil = #my-flag
> a'8
> b'
> }
> %% or
> {
> \override Flag.stencil =
> #(lambda (grob) ((straight-flag 0
Am Di., 19. Feb. 2019 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb edes :
>
>
> el 2019-02-19 a las 11:30 Thomas Morley escribió:
>
> > Did you already try my suggestion for flat flags?
> >
> > #(define-public (flat-flag grob)
> > "Flat flag style. The angles of the flags are b
el 2019-02-19 a las 11:30 Thomas Morley escribió:
> Did you already try my suggestion for flat flags?
>
> #(define-public (flat-flag grob)
> "Flat flag style. The angles of the flags are both 0 degrees"
> ((straight-flag 0.48 0.81 0 1.0 0 1.0) grob))
>
> Put
Am Di., 19. Feb. 2019 um 01:42 Uhr schrieb edes :
>
>
> el 2019-02-17 a las 21:41 Thomas Morley escribió:
>
> > Speaking only for myself I think the OP is correct saying flat-flags
> > should behave like Beams, though I don't agree for
> > modern/old-straight-fla
el 2019-02-17 a las 21:41 Thomas Morley escribió:
> Speaking only for myself I think the OP is correct saying flat-flags
> should behave like Beams, though I don't agree for
> modern/old-straight-flags.
I forgot to mention that in the only example that I have at hand of
ho
el 2019-02-17 a las 21:41 Thomas Morley escribió:
> Speaking only for myself I think the OP is correct saying flat-flags
> should behave like Beams, though I don't agree for
> modern/old-straight-flags.
And now I tend to agree with you... :-)
Both examples I mentioned in my other
nes, and I suspect they are just one
staff-space apart, although I haven't measured carefully.
In the Crumb piece, we can't tell what's happening with the flat flags/beams;
they aren't on the staff lines. But I suspect that they are exactly one
staff-space apart, so they d
Perfect Harm, thanks a lot! I am really looking forward to it.
Take care,
Gilberto
--
View this message in context:
http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Flat-flags-tp151684p152208.html
Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
2013/10/12 Karol Majewski :
> Hi Harm,
>
> does the patch fix issue 3096?
>
> Karol
No.
Though, I've an idea how to tackle 3096.
I'll try tomorrow, currently I'm too tired.
Cheers,
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lis
Hi Harm,
does the patch fix issue 3096?
Karol
Dnia 12-10-2013 o godz. 8:26 Thomas Morley napisał(a):
> 2013/10/2 Gilberto Agostinho :
> > Hi Harm,
> >
> > Thank you so much for this code. I realize now that it was not your
> > flat-flag code that wasn't matching the old and modern-straight-flags
2013/10/2 Gilberto Agostinho :
> Hi Harm,
>
> Thank you so much for this code. I realize now that it was not your
> flat-flag code that wasn't matching the old and modern-straight-flags, but
> actually it was the notes using \set stemLeftBeamCount x[] that were not
> matching them! Now I see that b
g of flagged and beamed stems is different and
> results in different stem-lengths.
> Therefore I doubt that a new defined flag ever matches the behaviour
> of a modified beam.
>
> My coding of flat-flags matches exactly the way how
> old/modern-straight-flags are build.
> (A l
ever matches the behaviour
of a modified beam.
My coding of flat-flags matches exactly the way how
old/modern-straight-flags are build.
(A little fine-tuning might still be necessary.)
You could try to adjust Stem.details-length to equal the behaviour of
beamed/flagged stems, though, I doubt you&
n flag-styles.scm
> >
> > It's a pity that the main definition there uses
> > 'ly:round-filled-polygon'. Setting the points of the polygon to fit a
> > cuboid will result in inclined flags, perhaps a rounding issue.
> > If it would work this way it would be a
issue.
> If it would work this way it would be a two-liner to define flat flags.
Maybe I should develop a patch with the idea to use
ly:round-filled-box, if the angles are 0.
Harm
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.
2013/10/1 Gilberto Agostinho :
> Hi all,
>
> According to the manual, the command necessary to create flat flags (\set
> stemLeftBeamCount) is "always equivalent to \once \set. In other words, beam
> count settings are not “sticky” [...]". Does this mean that the only wa
Hi all,
According to the manual, the command necessary to create flat flags (\set
stemLeftBeamCount) is "always equivalent to \once \set. In other words,
beam count settings are not “sticky” [...]". Does this mean that the only
way I can produce a score such as the one below is to
On 4/1/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Trevor Bača schreef:
> > Do we currently have support for 'flat flags' on a single stem in
> > isolation (ie, a stem outside of a beam group, or, alternatively, in a
> > beam group of length 1)?
>
&
Trevor Bača schreef:
Do we currently have support for 'flat flags' on a single stem in
isolation (ie, a stem outside of a beam group, or, alternatively, in a
beam group of length 1)?
In effect you're asking for a "straight" style for stems. I could add
that as a spo
Do we currently have support for 'flat flags' on a single stem in
isolation (ie, a stem outside of a beam group, or, alternatively, in a
beam group of length 1)?
See the attached scan; it's the beam fragments on the three downstem
notes that I'm curious about.
--
Trevor B
20 matches
Mail list logo
