[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution |
Date: |
Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:24:39 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) |
David Nalesnik <address@hidden> writes:
> David,
>
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 5:01 AM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Thomas Morley <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 2012/2/19 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
>
>
> > Furthermore, I realized, that there seems to be no conversion
> rule for
> > the following 2.12.3-definitions:
> >
> > From 2.12.3: \scm\lily-library.scm
> >
> > (define (interval-translate iv amount)
> > (cons (+ amount (car iv))
> > (+ amount (cdr iv))))
>
>
> It's used in snippets? Ugh. Probably easiest to put that back in
> and
> document it, then. Is there a known replacement?
>
>
>
>
> This function is found in 2.14.2 in \scm\lily-library.scm and could
> work:
>
> (define (cons-map f x)
> "map F to contents of X"
> (cons (f (car x)) (f (cdr x))))
>
> But any need for this or interval-translate is restricted to one line
> of the snippet, so maybe it would be better simply to expand that
> line?
Uh, convertrules.py converts interval-translate to coord-translate so
where is the actual problem?
--
David Kastrup
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, (continued)
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Graham Percival, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Carl Sorensen, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/19
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 2012/02/19