lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: thanks again for the editionEngraver


From: Jan-Peter Voigt
Subject: Re: thanks again for the editionEngraver
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:30:21 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0

Hi Kieren,

I thought about it, but since September I am employed in another job and
have only very spare time for lily. Well this contract is limited until
the end of year.
There is more to come ...
hope to develop on it soon!

For now
best,
Jan-Peter

Am 27.10.2014 um 19:41 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
> Hi Jan-Peter,
>
> I continue to use your \editionEngraver to great effect. Thanks again! I 
> really do think such a mechanism — properly tweaked/improved — should become 
> a standard part of the Liypond distro.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> 1. Have you thought any more about allowing direct addressing of contexts? 
> I’m currently revising a score with more than 10,000 frames (i.e., >200 
> measures on >50 staves), and would love to apply the \editionEngraver… but 
> you can probably imagine my trepidation, given that any later context 
> editing/reordering will break any existing edition tweaks.  =\
>
> 2. Have you thought any more about supporting anchor points in the score, so 
> that one could say “the position/offset of this mod is relative to anchor 
> point X”? When someone (Werner?) first suggested this, I didn’t immediately 
> see the benefit — though I believe I ultimately agreed that as long as the 
> anchor mechanism was independent of the existing \mark structure, it couldn’t 
> hurt. Now that I’ve really used \editionEngraver a lot, and on a lot of big 
> scores, I am convinced that an editionEngraver that Does The Right Thing™ 
> absolutely must support such anchors. Again, I’m looking at adding or 
> removing measures in this gargantuan score, and imagining the cascading chaos.
>
> Thanks!
> Kieren.
>
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 4:31 AM, Jan-Peter Voigt <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I thought of a change - or addition - like your proposal. At least the 
>> "counter" should be exchangable by the context-id.
>> That way partcombined voices can be addressed by "up", "down" and so on. I 
>> can't say, if it is managable to omit the context-name (Voice or Staff or 
>> else). But we will see.
>> So, yes, I consider it ;)
> _______________________
>
> Kieren MacMillan, composer
> www:  <http://www.kierenmacmillan.info>
> email:  address@hidden




reply via email to

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