Le 12/10/2021 à 15:33, David Kastrup a écrit :
but I don't even know whether there is a guarantee that
ly:arpeggio::print is happy with the grob being modified after the call
and before the stencil is getting used. Looking at the C++ code, that
appears to be the case. Maybe giving
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
>> No. "in some unspecified order":
>>
>> R5RS:
>
> Ah, thanks! I only had the Guile documentation, which is not quite as
> explicit in that respect. (Ok, they mention for let* that _here_ the
> assignments are done from left to right, but ...).
Strictly speaking "in
No. "in some unspecified order":
R5RS:
Ah, thanks! I only had the Guile documentation, which is not quite as
explicit in that respect. (Ok, they mention for let* that _here_ the
assignments are done from left to right, but ...).
Lukas
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
>> set! is very unidiomatic Scheme. You could use
>> (let* ((one (begin (ly:grob-set-property! ...) (ly:arpeggio::print grob)))
>>((two ...
>
> Yes, I'm aware that set! isn't really the essence of what functional
> programming languages are meant for. But
set! is very unidiomatic Scheme. You could use
(let* ((one (begin (ly:grob-set-property! ...) (ly:arpeggio::print grob)))
((two ...
Yes, I'm aware that set! isn't really the essence of what functional
programming languages are meant for. But basically the whole idea of
"putting the
Lukas-Fabian Moser writes:
>> Jean Abou Samra knew how to fix that behaviour of arpeggios, so
>> here's a (I hope) working solution:
>
> It seems we can continue this game of "LilyPond experts explain how to
> do things and I only have to post the resulting, ever simpler
> examples" for some
Hi all,
> It seems we can continue this game of "LilyPond experts explain how to do
> things and I only have to post the resulting, ever simpler examples" for some
> time. :-)
Ha! Looking forward to the inevitable “one-line-of-code” version. ;)
> Harm pointed out in
>
Jean Abou Samra knew how to fix that behaviour of arpeggios, so here's
a (I hope) working solution:
It seems we can continue this game of "LilyPond experts explain how to
do things and I only have to post the resulting, ever simpler examples"
for some time. :-)
Harm pointed out in
The problem is that this arpeggio is not taken into account for spacing: The
next note will be too close. I'm not yet sure what would be The Right Way to
change this, as neither X-extent nor extra-spacing-width of the arpeggio seem
to have an effect for spacing to the right. You can tweak
Hi Lukas,
> One could the default arpeggio stencil machinery do its job twice:
Nice! This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of…
> The problem is that this arpeggio is not taken into account for spacing: The
> next note will be too close. I'm not yet sure what would be The Right Way
The problem (shown in the third example) is that it doesn’t stretch to match
the chord height, like a normal arpeggio does. I don’t have time — and maybe
not even the skill — to do this The Right Way™ right now, but hopefully Someone
Else™ will take it to the goal line.
One could the
Hi Jackens,
> I'm trying to find a way to write an arpeggio up and down, like on the
> picture, but no luck so far, the Lilypond manual only deals with one arpeggio
> line cases... Any help would be very appreciated!
Here’s a start:
%%% SNIPPET BEGINS
% LilyBin
updownArpMarkup =
\markup
Hi everyone!
I'm trying to find a way to write an arpeggio up and down, like on the
picture, but no luck so far, the Lilypond manual only deals with one
arpeggio line cases... Any help would be very appreciated!
[image: image.png]
Thanks,
J.
13 matches
Mail list logo
