Re: TAB with right hand fingering(s) IN CHORDS ?

[Blöchl Bernhard]

I experimente with this fingering notation:

\version "2.19.80"

\layout {
  \context {
    \TabStaff
      \override StrokeFinger.digit-names = ##("P" "I" "M" "A" "X")
    \consists New_fingering_engraver
    strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down )
  }
  %{
  The finger characters under the chord are written one above the other 
and therefore unredable. To change this, I think there is some change in 
the source by the developers necessary.
  Tshe finger characters "upper case" are correct you see with this 
"\set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(right)" example.
  The warnings show, that this case of fingering of of chords "down" is 
not considered.
  %}
}
#(define RH rightHandFinger)

\new TabStaff \relative c {
  %\set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down )
  {
  c-\RH #1 e-\RH #2 g-\RH #3 c-\RH #4
  }

  %\set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(right )
  %\set strokeFingerOrientations = #'(up right down)
  {
  < c-\RH #1 e-\RH #2 g-\RH #3 > 4
  }
}

Regards

Am 28.01.2018 17:36, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Éric <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Hello
> > expending the thread "TAB with right  hand fingering?", it's a pity it 
> > is
> > not usable in chords with more than 1 fingering?
> > Even with only 1 fingering in a chord, it works only when attached to 
> > the
> > 1rst note  like this :
> >
> >
> > #(define RH rightHandFinger)
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new TabStaff \relative c {
> >     <c-\RH #1 e>
> >   }
> > }
> >
> > \layout {
> >   \context {
> >     \TabStaff
> >     \consists New_fingering_engraver
> >     strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down)
> >   }
> > }
> >
> >
> > If you just flip the notes, it doesn't works, like that :
> >
> > #(define RH rightHandFinger)
> >
> > \score {
> >   \new TabStaff \relative c {
> >     <e c-\RH #1>
> >   }
> > }
> >
> >
> > \layout {
> >   \context {
> >     \TabStaff
> >     \consists New_fingering_engraver
> >     strokeFingerOrientations = #'(down)
> >   }
> > }
>
> How about leaving a space after #1 ?  1> is not a known Scheme atom.
> And "doesn't work" instead of actually posting the error message forces
> anybody wanting to help you to compile the thing himself instead of
> pointing out trivialities like that just off the cuff.