[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 48 and 72 ET
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: 48 and 72 ET |
Date: |
Thu, 09 Feb 2017 23:53:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/
>>>>>>>> before. I don't know if that still works with more recent versions
>>>>>>>> though. Haven't touched it in a while.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I get an error in LilyPond 2.19.45, with an unbound variable "parser":
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> error: GUILE signaled an error for the expression beginning here
>>>>>>> # (ly:parser-set-note-names parser EqualFiftythreePitchNames)
>>>>>>> Unbound variable: parser
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to a
>>>>>> newer version?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe because it is in some library files.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't even make sense.
>>>
>>> The code makes use of three different external libraries.
>>
>> So? Why wouldn't you upgrade the libraries when upgrading LilyPond?
>
> Those are not my libraries. I updated some, that is hacked them to
> work, but that was a year ago.
And that means that you are not allowed to run convert-ly on them but
have to edit them by hand instead?
I'll stick with my "that doesn't even make sense" verdict, thank you
very much.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, (continued)
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Cole Ingraham, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Urs Liska, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, mskala, 2017/02/09