lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Can't find right hand fingering without string #'s


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Can't find right hand fingering without string #'s
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2015 13:32:16 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux)

BB <address@hidden> writes:

> \version "2.18.0"
> #(set-global-staff-size 25)
>
> {
>       \override TextScript.color = #red
>      c4^p c4-p c-2 c-3 c-4
>      c^\markup { \finger "2 - 3" }
> }
>
>
> I think I understand what you think to be wrong.
> Obviously you are refrencing to version 2.10.33 stable branch of ilypond
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.10/Documentation/user/lilypond/Fingering-instructions
> I cannot find that chapter in subsequent manuals.

Uh, that chapter does not prescribe c4-p or similar.

And it is pretty much transferred to
<URL:http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/inside-the-staff#fingering-instructions>

> There are two systems to mark the fingering with guitar, one with an
> number, the other with characters p, i, etc.

Uh, no?  The numbers are for the left hand fingers, the characters are
for the right hand fingers.

> Obviously newer versions of lilypond handle the characters simply as
> markup and not so special as in version 2.10.

Uh no?  2.10 handled -p as a text script.  So does 2.18, with the
exception that c-p is considered a single word, so you need to write
c -p or c- p or c-"p" in order to get the same output as previously.

> So the minus in front of a p ("-p") obviously will be handled as a _p
> and the p printed under the note. I do not know if that is an error or
> a mistake in developing to higer versions of lilypond. I cannot tell
> you if developers find that faulty and are willing to make a
> correction?

Making c-p a single word in all modes was very much deliberate and done
in version 2.15.43.  See
<URL:https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2702>.

> On 16.08.2015 12:13, Simon Albrecht wrote:
>> { c"p" }

No, he didn't.  He wrote { c-"p" }.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

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