[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 2.10 questions

From: Graham Percival
Subject: Re: 2.10 questions
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:26:10 -0800
User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20061025)

Monk Panteleimon wrote:
1. It looks like hairpinToBarline is set "true" by default. The "changes" doc makes it sound like you have to turn it on to get it to work:

Yes, true.  It's a bit late to fix it now, but thanks anyway!  :)

I assume that it was intended to be set ##t by default, and the docs are just phrased from a 2.8 point of view. If this is so (here's the question) is it ##t by default because that's the common consensus of traditional old-school engraving -- or is it just 'cause?

I think it was more of a "just 'cause" decision.

2. It looks like you can't put \tempo= inside \
midi{ } anymore.
The 2.10 manual (p 232) seems to say that only the \tempo command that goes with the notes (producing a metronome mark unless forbidden to do so) affects the tempo of the midi file. The manual's a little confusing here actually, because the example shows the curly brackets empty for the midi block, and tells us that in this example the tempo is set to 4=72. How? By leaving it empty? So 72 is default? What am I missing?

Umm. Do you see that "FIXME" label right underneath the empty example? That's the surest sign that the doc editor (i.e. me) has been slacking off. In particular, he didn't do a search for "FIXME" signs just before 2.10 was released.

Fixed in the next release.

So, the only ways to set a tempo for the midi file without adding a metronome mark are to add and a metronome mark, but make it invisible, or else do that kind of longish thing with the scheme-indentifier in it, wherewith convert-ly replaces the old \midi{ \tempo = ... } deal. Right?

Currently, yes.

Is there a shorter way, or can I somehow re-instate the 2.8 method in my lilypond installation? I often make midi files, but rarely require a metronome mark.

There was some discussion about having another way to set the tempo, but the discussion fizzled out. Stay tuned for more info.

3. When I run 2.10 on any files (before or after convert-ly) I get lots of messages that say "programming error: no solution found for Bezier intersection, continuing, crossfingers"
The files still compile, but I wonder if it's okay to uncross my fingers now.

Programming errors are a bad sign -- I mean, it's our fault, not yours. Please construct a small example that demonstrates the error and send it to bug-lilypond; that will help us improve future versions of lilypond.

4. (the dumbest question of all) Why 2.10? What's wrong with 3?

A change of 2.x to 3.x is seen as a big step; in particular for lilypond, increasing the initial number means that old files are very likely to require manual updating (ie convert-ly can't handle the changes). Since 2.10 didn't break a lot of old files, it was became 2.10. :)

- Graham

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]