Hi, Rainer!! Thanks again! The new approach you just suggested is absolutely better than the first one. With the first one, the very first old file I tested, which had movement breaks with changes in noinst, did compile with PMX but the resulting score failed to reflect the very first change in noinst. It was because in the original PMX source I had in fact temporarily redefined \atnextline; so it failed for EXACTLY the reason you suggested might come up.
So I went ahead and implemented the new approach, requiring changes in both pmx.tex and pmxab.exe. I'm still not confident enough to post the revised version as a new beta, but if anyone wants the revised PMX files just let me know and I'd be happy to send them. Meanwhile, I have a question for Hermann, Rainer, Dirk, or anyone else who cares to jump in: Can you provide an example of an M-Tx source that manages to change the number of instruments in midstream. Hermann's PMX file that started all of this does do that, but he didn't provide the M-Tx source and may have manually combined several prepmx-generated files. On my commercial site I have published a cantata that goes back and forth between 2 instruments (BC+Voice) and 4 (BC+Voice+2 violins). I never could figure out how to get M-Tx to accept the change in noinst, so the M-Tx source had 4 all the way, and I wrote a special program to post-process the initial prepmx-generated .pmx, removing the extra inputs where there needed to be only two instruments and writing a new .pmx. I'd really like to know how to avoid the extra steps and get M-Tx to directly create a .pmx that reflects the changes in noinst. --Don Simons >-----Original Message----- >From: TeX-Music [mailto:tex-music-boun...@tug.org] On Behalf Of Rainer Dunker >Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2012 8:02 AM >To: Werner Icking Music Archive >Subject: Re: [Tex-music] Space between systems > >Hello Don! > >Am 18.08.2012 schrieb Don Simons: >> Rainer, I bow to your mastery of TeX! I doubt if I ever could have figured >> that out. But at least I figured out who could figure it out. Thanks!!!! > >Thank you! But my decisive advantage here definitely is the intimate >knowledge of musixlyr's functioning; if musixlyr weren't my own >creation, I'd had no chance to find a solution either. > >> With the whole weekend before me, I'll be trying to find PMX examples where >> other things might be affected by your proposed changes. [...] > >Fine---thank you for incorporating the problem solution on the PMX level! > >Of course I can't judge whether other problems would arise due to the >discussed changes. But based on my slight impression of the interaction >between \newnoi and \newmovement, I take the liberty to add the >following idea to the proposal: > >The only thing that \newnoi does is to schedule "\def\nbinstruments{...}" >at the next proper processing step (currently using \atnextbar). Since >the "new" proper place for that action is part of PMX coding anyway, >you could achieve the desired effect more easily by abandoning \newnoi >completely and coding the \nbinstruments assignment directly in >\newmovement instead: > >\def\newmovement#1#2#3{\let\holdstop\stoppiece... % 3 args instead of 2 >... > \def\contpiece{\def\nbinstruments{#3}% <-- assignment inserted here > \startpiece\addspace\afterruleskip\let\contpiece\holdcont}% >}% > >In the .tex file generated by pmxab, the new number of instruments would >then have to be given as third argument to \newmovement: > >OLD: >\newnoi{2}% >\setstaffs11% >... more such commands ... >\newmovement00% > >NEW: >\setstaffs11% >... more such commands ... >\newmovement00{2}% > >Possible advantage of this approach over the first idea: \atnextline is >kept uninvolved, reducing the danger of bad side effects. > >> The task of finding other issues with these changes makes me think of >> another true TeXpert, our dear friend Werner, who somehow could always find >> bugs in PMX even if they only showed up when multiple, uncommon events >> happened in a specific sequence. > >I fully agree. I was most impressed by his inexhaustible enthusiasm by >which he brought and kept us people and our ideas together to make >MusiXTeXing a great activity. > >Best regards, > >Rainer >------------------------------- >TeX-music@tug.org mailing list >If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to >http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music ------------------------------- TeX-music@tug.org mailing list If you want to unsubscribe or look at the archives, go to http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
