bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Problem with 2.6.5.1 (stable, I'm told)


From: Al
Subject: Re: Problem with 2.6.5.1 (stable, I'm told)
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:29:58 +0000

Thanks for your reply. I have a couple of problems with what you said though.

The first is that I'm using completion_heads on purpose because I
didn't want to have to worry about splitting long notes up and working
out the ties for myself. If it was me writing it I wouldn't mind, but
I'm in effect converting a JFugue (http://www.jfugue.org/) string of
notes into a LilyPond source file. In these JFugue music strings you
only define a note as the note and its length, much like LilyPond's
representation, but you don't specify bars.
My program actually splits a JFugue music string up into staves and
bars, but it was hard to do anything that seemed good about ties, so
instead I just pretty much left it as it was in JFugue (that is, a bar
can end with a note that is actually longer than a bar's length) and
then in subsequent bars (depending on how long the note is) I have
'fake' notes in them as placeholders (like saying "this note continues
here, but when it comes to playing me ignore me, as the note's already
been specified".) Sorry if that's a little confusing, but my point is
basically that it's really hard to deal with ties, so completion_heads
is somewhat a godsend for me.

The second problem is actually to do with what you said. You said that
my specific problem was that the rests aren't being tied. Well while
that's kind of right (if it was broken down into actual bars, like you
did, you'd have to split that minim rest) but it's also ignoring part
of the cis. It's coming out in the PDF as gis4 f e8 dis4 cis8 ~ | cis2
r2 | r8.. instead of gis4 f e8 dis4 cis8 ~ | cis2 ~ cis8 r4. | r8
r8...
so even ignoring the rest not being tied, it's also not working out
the cis either. Unless I'm wrong?

Thanks again for your help, I'll be glad when this whole project is
finally over :)

Alex.


On 3/19/06, Graham Percival <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 18-Mar-06, at 8:17 PM, Al wrote:
>
> > gis'4 fis'4 e'8 dis'4 cis'2. r2 r8 a'8 a'8 a'8 a'8 gis'8 fis'8 e'8
> > dis'8 e'4 e'4 dis'4 dis'8 cis'1
> >
> > and I'm using "Completion_heads_engraver" for automatic ties.
>
> I recommend that you read chapter 4 in the new 2.7 documentation.
> Specifically, re-write this as one bar per line.  (I know you're using
> automatic ties, but...
>
> gis4 fis e8 dis cis8 ~ |
> cis2 ~ cis8 r4.  |  (tied over rest)
> r8 r8 a8 a a a g fis  |
> blah blah
>
> > As far as I can tell, I'm doing nothing wrong. Is this fixed in a
> > later release? I'd rather not download a developmental release unless
> > I know it's fixed my problem (if, indeed, there is a problem and it's
> > not me being stupid).
>
> The problem is that rests don't get tied over with completion_heads.
> I'm tempted to say that this isn't a lilypond problem.  :)
> (to other people: this is documented in 2.7)
>
> IMO, completion_heads produces more problems than it solves.  Sure, the
> automatic ties are nice, but writing ~ isn't such a pain once you get
> used to it.  And if you insert a few bar line checks | every couple of
> bars, you can avoid a lot of problems.
>
> Cheers,
> - Graham
>
>




reply via email to

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