On 5/2/09 5:50 AM, "Daniel Hulme" wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:54:09PM +0800, Graham Percival wrote:
>> Is it worth defining our own function
>> replaceOnly("\\octave", ...)
>> which does
>> re.sub("\\octave[?a-z,A-Z]", ...)
>> or whatever the regex was?
>
> \\octave\b would work f
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 09:54:09PM +0800, Graham Percival wrote:
> Is it worth defining our own function
> replaceOnly("\\octave", ...)
> which does
> re.sub("\\octave[?a-z,A-Z]", ...)
> or whatever the regex was?
\\octave\b would work fine. \b matches a word Boundary.
--
It's so hard to see
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Cool! I still think that you ought to put it all (including the grep
part)
into a single script and store it in the source tree. And it ought to be
added to the CG so that we have it tracked for the next time we release a
stable version (I assume
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
This was a very simple script. I learned a good bit of scripting with
the help of Patrick Horgan a while back when I was writing my lily2image
script. Here's the script for any interested folks (first I did
"convert-ly -e *.ly" on the whole directory):
#!/bin/bash
#***
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mittwoch, 29. April 2009 15:57:18 Valentin Villenave wrote:
> 2009/4/29 Graham Percival :
>
> 2009/4/29 Graham Percival :
> > Yes and no. It would be a great strategy, if we had any clue what
> > the status of LSR was. Until we have some kind of i
2009/4/29 Graham Percival :
2009/4/29 Graham Percival :
> Yes and no. It would be a great strategy, if we had any clue what
> the status of LSR was. Until we have some kind of indication as
> to when the change can happen, and how it should happen, I
> question whether any of this work is worthw
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 03:17:46PM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote:
>>
>> I'm not certain this is necessary. OK, it might be good to use
>> word-matching for "\octave " rather than string matching
>> "\octave*", but that's no unique to this occurrance.
>> (no, I don't know t
Graham Percival wrote:
Yes, I was thinking the same thing but I don't know how to change the
convert-ly rules. It was easier for me just to change \octaves to
\makeOctaves.
Any Frog willing to take on this convert-ly rule fix? You have a file that
you can use to see if you have fixe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mittwoch, 29. April 2009 12:16:52 Graham Percival wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:37:12AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > I think the solution is to simply check that no letter follows after
> > \octave, This can be easiest done by a negati
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:37:12AM +0200, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > This probably also indicates a need to change the convert-ly rule for
> > \octave. If it doesn't work for \octaves, it also wouldn't work for
> > \octaveAdjustFunction, or s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Dienstag, 28. April 2009 23:58:49 Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> On 4/28/09 10:24 AM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> > of my own files before. The convert-ly script took the \octaves command
> > as if it were an octave check instead of a user-defined macro.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:24:36PM -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 4/28/09 4:42 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
>
> > After running the script on the directory with all the snippets in it, I
> > run this command to find snippets that didn't compile:
>
> Cool! I still think that you ought to p
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
On 4/28/09 4:42 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Thanks for the offer, Chip. I've just finished a preliminary run
through all of the snippets. I downloaded the tarball of the entire
repo and ran them through the convert-ly script, then did
On 4/28/09 4:42 PM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>> Thanks for the offer, Chip. I've just finished a preliminary run
>>> through all of the snippets. I downloaded the tarball of the entire
>>> repo and ran them through the convert-ly script, then did a looping
>>>
Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Thanks for the offer, Chip. I've just finished a preliminary run
through all of the snippets. I downloaded the tarball of the entire
repo and ran them through the convert-ly script, then did a looping
script that ran lilypond on each updated snippet using 2.12.2 and sa
2009/4/28 Jonathan Kulp :
> If you'd like to have a go with a few, try fixing the
> "changing-the-font-to-smallcaps", which doesn't even work in 2.10 in the
> snippet currently in LSR. The font doesn't change at all.
There's nothing you can do about this, since it requires a font to be
loaded wh
On 4/28/09 10:24 AM, "Jonathan Kulp" wrote:
> Chip wrote:
>>> There are plans to upgrade it to 2.12 but it hasn't happened yet. I
>>> don't understand all of the technical issues but one of the problems
>>> was discussed on a recent thread, which is that someone has to check
>>> all the snipp
Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24:46AM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
I've just finished a preliminary run
through all of the snippets. I downloaded the tarball of the entire
repo and ran them through the convert-ly script, then did a looping
script that ran lilypond on eac
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 11:24:46AM -0500, Jonathan Kulp wrote:
> I've just finished a preliminary run
> through all of the snippets. I downloaded the tarball of the entire
> repo and ran them through the convert-ly script, then did a looping
> script that ran lilypond on each updated snippet
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Another one that doesn't work in 2.12 is
"polymetric-section--synchronizing..."
It has a bunch of \InnerStaffGroup commands that must be obsolete
because they're causing errors. Changing these to \StaffGroup makes it
compile, but then the staffgroup loses the bracket an
Chip wrote:
There are plans to upgrade it to 2.12 but it hasn't happened yet. I
don't understand all of the technical issues but one of the problems
was discussed on a recent thread, which is that someone has to check
all the snippets to make sure they compile under 2.12. I might be
doing so
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Chip wrote:
Jon
Thanks for the info.
Just out of curiosity - why isn't the LSR kept up-to-date with the
latest release? The lastest stable release is 2.12.2 according to the
lily homepage, yet the LSR Contributing page says it is running
2.10.12 and at the same time say
Chip wrote:
Jon
Thanks for the info.
Just out of curiosity - why isn't the LSR kept up-to-date with the
latest release? The lastest stable release is 2.12.2 according to the
lily homepage, yet the LSR Contributing page says it is running 2.10.12
and at the same time says it always runs the l
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Chip wrote:
It normally means your snippet is incompatible with the version of
LilyPond being run on LSR (2.10.12) or needs either `Standalone
snippet' or `Large snippet' ticked. If you still can't get it
working, please post it here and I'll give it the once over.
Regard
Chip wrote:
It normally means your snippet is incompatible with the version of
LilyPond being run on LSR (2.10.12) or needs either `Standalone
snippet' or `Large snippet' ticked. If you still can't get it
working, please post it here and I'll give it the once over.
Regards,
Neil
Thanks Neil,
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Chip wrote:
Thanks Jon,
I got those parameters from a Linus manpage and tested all of them
and more, and the ones listed below work as expected. There were
several others that did not work on the Lilypond output. That is why
I think these should be listed, so someone does
Chip wrote:
Thanks Jon,
I got those parameters from a Linus manpage and tested all of them and
more, and the ones listed below work as expected. There were several
others that did not work on the Lilypond output. That is why I think
these should be listed, so someone doesn't try one of the oth
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Chip,
One more option is to place the date in the footer, or as it is
called in Lilypond - the tagline.
This is not accurate: the tagline and the footer are two different
things. (Check the docs to see what each of them are.)
Please correct the LSR snippet accordin
Hi Chip,
I already did [the testing]. Below is the list of tested/usable
parameters
Nice!
Thanks,
Kieren.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Jonathan Kulp wrote:
Chip wrote:
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/4/26 Chip :
Hmm, did run into an apparent error - after I click on the Save
button I get
a pop-up box that says "No output from Lilypond", did I do
something wrong?
Probably not. :)
It normally means your snippet is incompat
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Chip,
One more option is to place the date in the footer, or as it is called
in Lilypond - the tagline.
This is not accurate: the tagline and the footer are two different
things. (Check the docs to see what each of them are.)
Please correct the LSR snippet accordin
Hi Chip,
One more option is to place the date in the footer, or as it is
called in Lilypond - the tagline.
This is not accurate: the tagline and the footer are two different
things. (Check the docs to see what each of them are.)
Please correct the LSR snippet accordingly, so we don't have
Chip wrote:
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/4/26 Chip :
Hmm, did run into an apparent error - after I click on the Save
button I get
a pop-up box that says "No output from Lilypond", did I do something
wrong?
Probably not. :)
It normally means your snippet is incompatible with the version
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/4/26 Chip :
Hmm, did run into an apparent error - after I click on the Save button I get
a pop-up box that says "No output from Lilypond", did I do something wrong?
Probably not. :)
It normally means your snippet is incompatible with the version of
LilyPond b
2009/4/26 Chip :
> Hmm, did run into an apparent error - after I click on the Save button I get
> a pop-up box that says "No output from Lilypond", did I do something wrong?
Probably not. :)
It normally means your snippet is incompatible with the version of
LilyPond being run on LSR (2.10.12) or
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/4/26 Chip :
When I conclude my addition to the LSR, do I click on the Save button or the
OK button? Does it make a difference? I just want to make sure I don't loose
my work, but that it gets properly inserted into the LSR.
The only difference between the two o
Neil Puttock wrote:
2009/4/26 Chip :
When I conclude my addition to the LSR, do I click on the Save button or the
OK button? Does it make a difference? I just want to make sure I don't loose
my work, but that it gets properly inserted into the LSR.
The only difference between the two o
2009/4/26 Chip :
> When I conclude my addition to the LSR, do I click on the Save button or the
> OK button? Does it make a difference? I just want to make sure I don't loose
> my work, but that it gets properly inserted into the LSR.
The only difference between the two options is that `OK' takes
When I conclude my addition to the LSR, do I click on the Save button or
the OK button? Does it make a difference? I just want to make sure I
don't loose my work, but that it gets properly inserted into the LSR.
Regards,
Chip
___
lilypond-user mailin
Valentin Villenave wrote:
2009/1/8 chip :
The page at https://lsr.dsi.unumi.it says:
No output from Lilypond
Can you post your snippet here?
Cheers,
Valentin
Absolutely. Here it is -
~~~
% LilyPond
%{
This is a template that works well for a horn sec
2009/1/8 chip :
> The page at https://lsr.dsi.unumi.it says:
> No output from Lilypond
Can you post your snippet here?
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
2009/1/8 chip :
> I have finally go registered to add my template to the LSR and have added
> all the relevant info into the form to do so. When I click on either the Go
> button or the Save button I get a pop-up box that says -
>
> The page at https://lsr.dsi.unumi.it says:
> No output from Lilypo
I have finally go registered to add my template to the LSR and have
added all the relevant info into the form to do so. When I click on
either the Go button or the Save button I get a pop-up box that says -
The page at https://lsr.dsi.unumi.it says:
No output from Lilypond
I have tried several
43 matches
Mail list logo
