Valentin Petzel writes:
> Hello David,
>
> the commit that introduced this was
>
> https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commit/b480b873c8cc686765c1f188be696636c2018adc[1]
>
> Now, I did not use Lilypond in 2004 so I cannot say for sure,
> but I think this should have worked before that commit.
Hello David,
the commit that introduced this was
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/commit/b480b873c8cc686765c1f188be696636c2018adc[1]
Now, I did not use Lilypond in 2004 so I cannot say for sure,
but I think this should have worked before that commit.
But I suppose we could try it we someho
Valentin Petzel writes:
>> Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2023, 13:21:49 CET schrieb:
>>> Ahanu Banerjee writes:
>>> > I suppose there are different definitions for what a "bug" is. I said
>>> > it was not one because it is obviously intended behavior
>>>
>>> More like an unintended side effect of imp
I’d say this is pretty much what we call a regression ...
Am Mittwoch, 1. Februar 2023, 13:21:49 CET schrieb David Kastrup:
> Ahanu Banerjee writes:
> > I suppose there are different definitions for what a "bug" is. I said
> > it was not one because it is obviously intended behavior
>
> More lik
Ahanu Banerjee writes:
> I suppose there are different definitions for what a "bug" is. I said
> it was not one because it is obviously intended behavior
More like an unintended side effect of implementing obviously intended
behavior.
--
David Kastrup
Hello Ahanu,
the cleanest way would be if this was fixed in code, but else instead of your
<< ... >> constructs it suffices to do
\version "2.24.0"
\language "english"
{
g8 \new Voice <>^\upbow g_\upbow g g
}
In fact we can use a little music function to get this done really
beautifully:
s
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:49 PM Ahanu Banerjee
wrote:
> That's certainly an interesting approach. Reminds me of the old SCORE
> system. But unless I misunderstood your suggestion, it becomes rather
> inconvenient and inefficient for larger scores, particularly if changes
> have to be made to the
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:41 PM Michael Werner wrote:
> ...
> \version "2.24.0"
> \language "english"
>
> music = { g8 g g g }
> upArticulation = { g8 g-\upbow g g }
> downArticulation = { g8 g-\upbow g g }
>
> <<
> \new Dynamics
> \upArticulation
> \new Staff
> \music
> \new Dynamics
> \downArti
I suppose there are different definitions for what a "bug" is. I said it
was not one because it is obviously intended behavior—I figured my use case
is a bit unusual so was not surprised by this. But if it can be treated as
a bug and additional functionality can be added in a future version, that
w
On 01/02/2023 03:51, Ahanu Banerjee wrote:
> It's obviously not a bug. Jean, thanks for pointing out where the relevant
> instruction is.
>
> What would be the easiest way to modify this behavior for a single score?
It's a bit of a weird thing to do, but you could consider
\version "2.24.0"
On 01/02/2023 03:59, kie...@kierenmacmillan.info wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> I would personally consider that a bug!
>> script-engraver.cc:
>>
>> void
>> Script_engraver::listen_articulation (Stream_event *ev)
>> {
>> /* Discard double articulations for part-combining. */
>> for (vsize i = 0; i < s
Hi all,
I would personally consider that a bug!
script-engraver.cc:
void
Script_engraver::listen_articulation (Stream_event *ev)
{
/* Discard double articulations for part-combining. */
for (vsize i = 0; i < scripts_.size (); i++)
if (scm_is_eq (get_property (scripts_[i].event_, "articulatio
It's obviously not a bug. Jean, thanks for pointing out where the relevant
instruction is.
What would be the easiest way to modify this behavior for a single score?
Thanks,
-Ahanu
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023, 21:37 Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> On 01/02/2023 03:34, kie...@kierenmacmillan.info wrote:
> > H
That's certainly an interesting approach. Reminds me of the old SCORE
system. But unless I misunderstood your suggestion, it becomes rather
inconvenient and inefficient for larger scores, particularly if changes
have to be made to the notes later down the line, i.e., having to modify
multiple sets
Hi Ahanu,
I would split things out into some variables, and put the articulations
into separate contexts. I find it makes things much easier to keep track
of. For example:
\version "2.24.0"
\language "english"
music = { g8 g g g }
upArticulation = { g8 g-\upbow g g }
downArticulation = { g8 g-\u
On Wed, Feb 01, 2023 at 03:37:47AM +0100, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
> On 01/02/2023 03:34, kie...@kierenmacmillan.info wrote:
> > Hi Ahanu,
> >
> >> g_\upbow ^\upbow g g % fails
> >
> > I would personally consider that a bug!
>
> script-engraver.cc:
>
> void
> Script_engraver::listen_articulation
On 01/02/2023 03:34, kie...@kierenmacmillan.info wrote:
> Hi Ahanu,
>
>> g_\upbow ^\upbow g g % fails
>
> I would personally consider that a bug!
script-engraver.cc:
void
Script_engraver::listen_articulation (Stream_event *ev)
{
/* Discard double articulations for part-combining. */
for (
Hi Ahanu,
g_\upbow ^\upbow g g % fails
I would personally consider that a bug!
As for a "solution", what about this?
<< g_\upbow \\ <>^\upbow >>
Not *that* much better than your hack… but maybe a little better?
Kieren.
I'm trying to put the same articulation both above and below one note. (My
document has one set of bowings above the staff and an alternate set below
the staff, and occasionally they both need the same marking.)
The workaround I currently have is creating a second voice, which is a bit
of a pain.
19 matches
Mail list logo
