Re: Updates to bagpipe.ly

[Sven Axelsson]

On 2 January 2011 20:22, Daniel Dadap <address@hidden> wrote:
> Sven Axelsson wrote:
>> I am the author of the bagpipe.ly mode included in the Lilypond
>> distribution. I'm sorry I haven't been very visible here the last
>> several years. I haven't had much user feedback for the bagpipe mode,
>> although I know there are people out there using it.
>
> Hi Sven. You are right, there are people out there using it, and I'm one of 
> them. Thanks very much for making it easy to engrave bagpipe music with 
> Lilypond! (I'm not a very advanced Lilypond user, so I can't comment much on 
> your actual questions about default layout tweaks. I can say that I never mix 
> bagpipe and non-bagpipe scores, so personally, I'm fine with doing as much as 
> you like by default.)

Nice! Always good to hear from other pipers.

> Actually, I was looking for a newer version of bagpipe.ly when I found this 
> thread. Specifically, I was entering a piece that included an embellishment 
> that I couldn't find in bagpipe.ly: it's a lot like a d doubling, but goes to 
> c instead of e. I'm not sure what it's called, maybe just an alternate d 
> doubling? Anyway, I couldn't find it, so for now I've just put it in manually 
> as "\grace { \small g32[ d c] }", but it would be nice if this could be added 
> to future versions of bagpipe.ly (or perhaps a macro to make it easier to 
> define custom embellishments?) Sorry, I can't help with a suggestion for what 
> to call it, since I have no idea myself.

OK, that's a \slurd. However, I only have the "old" way of writing it,
with a low g instead of c, since that's how I play it myself. There
are a couple of other gracenotes that have this distinction, so maybe
I should add them as alternatives.

> Might I suggest including a definition for \hideKeySignature that just does 
> \bagpipeKey, for easy backwards compatibility? If the remaining compatibility 
> issues are as minor as this, maybe you won't need to call it bagpipe_new. (Or 
> maybe that's the point of your convert.ly rules? I guess that would be a 
> reason for me to explicitly use version numbers in my input files.)

What will happen is that I'll just update the existing bagpipe.ly
withg the new spacing rules and some new grace notes. I guess there's
no real point in confusing existing users. I'll keep the other changes
in my git repo only if anyone wants them.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.