A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
29 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

David Kastrup
Wols Lists <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 05/01/20 17:22, Malte Meyn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 05.01.20 um 18:11 schrieb Wols Lists:
>>> Anyways, I'll give you a little tip, and attach my "dynamics.ily" file.
>>> All my custom dynamics live in here,  and I include it in any work that
>>> might need them.  I'm *guessing* that it's very similar to the standard
>>> definitions that exist in lilypond, […]
>>
>> No, it isn’t. Your commands produce TextScripts, not DynamicTexts, so
>> they are not vertically aligned with other dynamics. This is how the
>> standard definitions look like:
>>
>>     sfzp = #(make-dynamic-script "sfzp")
>>
> Okay. That's fine for things like sfzp, but I've got things like "piu
> f", "molto ff", and looking at it, it looks like piu and molto are in a
> different font. Iirc, the dynamics font is missing a bunch of
> characters, which could be why.
>
> So how would I get that effect? Just putting the whole in a
> make-dynamic-script is likely to result in a garbled mess.

Is it?

piu-f = #(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { \normal-text \italic piu f } #})

{ c''1\piu-f }

> (Sorry I'm not trying it out right now, but I'm reading emails, not
> doing lilypond and looking for a piece to check it out on :-)

That's a problem if your mail client is not your LilyPond IDE.

--
David Kastrup

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

Wols Lists
On 05/01/2020 22:46, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Okay. That's fine for things like sfzp, but I've got things like "piu
>> f", "molto ff", and looking at it, it looks like piu and molto are in a
>> different font. Iirc, the dynamics font is missing a bunch of
>> characters, which could be why.
>>
>> So how would I get that effect? Just putting the whole in a
>> make-dynamic-script is likely to result in a garbled mess.

> Is it?
>
> piu-f = #(make-dynamic-script #{ \markup { \normal-text \italic piu f } #})
>
Brilliant, thanks. I'm guessing I tried the simplistic version ages ago
and it all went wrong which is why I did what I did. I'll play with this
next time I'm doing some ponding :-)

> { c''1\piu-f }
>
>> (Sorry I'm not trying it out right now, but I'm reading emails, not
>> doing lilypond and looking for a piece to check it out on:-)
> That's a problem if your mail client is not your LilyPond IDE.
>
:-)

Cheers,
Wol

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics

ptoye
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Sunday, January 5, 2020, 10:28:43 PM, you wrote:

> Am So., 5. Jan. 2020 um 14:20 Uhr schrieb Peter Toye <[hidden email]>:

>> But I'm really not familiar in any detail with the whole patching process, whether or not I use git directly or via LilyDev and/or lily-git and/or git-cl (the relationship between these components is a bit pobscure to me).

> git-cl is a different tool

I thought so - thanks for the confirmation.

> Once you've access to the source-files then
> many parts fall into the
> right place automatically, at least I hope so ;)

So do I :)

>> there's the business of submitting it. CG section 3 says at the head "Send patch files to the appropriate place:".

> Using git-cl will do the job for you.

Thanks.

> Well, the idea of mentoring is a very nice one. As far as I can tell it never worked really.
> Though, you'll get always support here. At least as long as people are available.
> Speaking only for me, tomorrow my winter-break ends, meaning I'll have less time for LilyPond.

I see - I'll have to get to grips with git-cl then.

> I'm not a programmer, and I never got any formal lessons on it, i.e. I'm an autodidact.

I was a programmer (and I think quite a good one) many years ago, but the thought of learning another programming style at my age (I last looked at list processing languages at university in the 1960s) is a bit daunting.

>> Also, I'm a Linux newbie - still trying to get my head around the whole 'container' concept. There seem to be a number of different container management systems: Docker and LXC to name but two. Does it matter which one I use? My system is systemd-free (on purpose), and the instructions you pointed out to me earlier imply that I should have it. Is this a show-stopper?

> Don't know. I hope Federico does. cc-ing him.

Thanks - I hope he has time to answer.

>Well, I have some practise in _writing_ mails, but you never heard my _spoken_ english ;)

Better than my spoken German, I assure you.

Best regards,

Peter
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]

Urs Liska-3
In reply to this post by Malte Meyn-3
4. Januar 2020 12:34, "Malte Meyn" <[hidden email]> schrieb:

> Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn:
>
>> But that brings me to another question: Shouldn’t we add the \dynamic > command from openlilylib to
>> vanilla LilyPond? This would allow users to > have “p dolce”, “più f” and ‘exotic’ dynamics like
>> “mfz” whithout having > to define extra commands using make-dynamic-script.
>
> One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might not want to install
> “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have never used openlilylib apart from copying
> definitions from the definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t think that
> many newbies will use oll …)


There are good arguments to make openLilyLib more accessible to the general user (at the conference in Salzburg next week discussing the state of this will be part of my agenda). There are significant packages available that can be extremely useful but seem not really suitable to be merged into vanilla LilyPond.

OTOH from the many smaller functions scattered over the "snippets" and oll-misc repository many might really be added to the main program. The dynamic functions might be prime candidates for that.
That means someone should prepare a documented patch with regtest (if appropriate) and submit it for review.
If nobody is willing to invest that amount of time the functions may well stay available in openLilyLib ...


>
> Same argument for \shapeII.


This is definitely something I'd want to see in LilyPond. Maybe it has to be significantly updated by now, and it should *not* have that indexed name. If *replacing* \shape with \shapeII is not an option I'd suggest finding a completely new name.

Urs

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]

Andrew Bernard
In reply to this post by Malte Meyn-3
Hi Malte,

\shapeII is a function I use heavily - heavily - in all my work. It's
indispensable for me at least. I'm very familiar with OpenLilyLib, and
contribute a bit to it, so it's not an issue for me, but that's a
function that really ought to go into lilypond core in my view.

As for newbies not using OpenLilyLib, you can't make such as assertion
because you cannot say what their level of experience with computers
and software is, so I don't think that's a pertinent point.

Perhaps ois the NR had instructions for how to install and use
OpenLilyLib as a powerful addon, then it make have more 'street cred'
and become more widely used in the way it is intended, not just copy
and paste of bits. I do think people see it as far outside Lilypond
and don't want to get involved, somehow.

Andrew


On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 22:34, Malte Meyn <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn:

> One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might
> not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have
> never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the
> definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t think
> that many newbies will use oll …)
>
> Same argument for \shapeII.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]

Urs Liska-3


Am 7. Januar 2020 23:53:42 MEZ schrieb Andrew Bernard <[hidden email]>:

>Hi Malte,
>
>\shapeII is a function I use heavily - heavily - in all my work. It's
>indispensable for me at least. I'm very familiar with OpenLilyLib, and
>contribute a bit to it, so it's not an issue for me, but that's a
>function that really ought to go into lilypond core in my view.
>
>As for newbies not using OpenLilyLib, you can't make such as assertion
>because you cannot say what their level of experience with computers
>and software is, so I don't think that's a pertinent point.
>
>Perhaps ois the NR had instructions for how to install and use
>OpenLilyLib as a powerful addon, then it make have more 'street cred'
>and become more widely used in the way it is intended, not just copy
>and paste of bits. I do think people see it as far outside Lilypond
>and don't want to get involved, somehow.

I agree that openLilyLib could be introduced in the documentation or at least on the website.
However, I don't think OLL is ready for that. I I wouldn't want it to be officially endorsed as long as it is not at least basically documented.

Urs

>
>Andrew
>
>
>On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 22:34, Malte Meyn <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn:
>
>> One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users
>might
>> not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I
>have
>> never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the
>> definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t
>think
>> that many newbies will use oll …)
>>
>> Same argument for \shapeII.
>>

--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

How to use LilyDev without systemd

ptoye
In reply to this post by Thomas Morley-2
Dear Federico,

Thomas Morley forwarded you an email from http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-suggestion-add-rf-to-built-in-dynamics-td226659.html 

One issue in it was that my Linux distro (antiX) does not have systemd, and it appears from the documentation that LilyDev needs it. I am a Linux newbie, and don't fully understand the container system. Apparently you are the expert on this.

Is there any chance you could find time to let me know whether the container version of LilyDev will run under any of the easily-available container managers (Docker, LXC...)? If it wn't, I suppose that I will  have to try to find a Linux version that will run on my rather ancient laptop.

Best regards,

Peter
mailto:[hidden email]
www.ptoye.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to use LilyDev without systemd

Federico Bruni-2

Hi Peter

Il giorno gio 9 gen 2020 alle 10:18, Peter Toye <[hidden email]> ha
scritto:

> Dear Federico,
>
> Thomas Morley forwarded you an email from
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-suggestion-add-rf-to-built-in-dynamics-td226659.html
>
> One issue in it was that my Linux distro (antiX) does not have
> systemd, and it appears from the documentation that LilyDev needs it.
> I am a Linux newbie, and don't fully understand the container system.
> Apparently you are the expert on this.
>

Only the container (Lilydev-1-debian.tar.xz file) needs systemd.
The virtual machine (LilyDev-1-debian-vm.zip file) can be installed in
VirtualBox or GNOME Boxes (or any libvirt frontend).


Another option, if you want to keep your lilypond dev environment
separated from your system, is Debootstrap:
https://wiki.debian.org/Debootstrap

but then you must set up the system following the CG:
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-compiling-lilypond#ubuntu
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-building-documentation

and build guile-1.8 using these commands:
https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/blob/master/mkosi/debian/mkosi.postinst#L42

(copy lines 23-35 of that file to ~/.bashrc before compiling guile-1.8)


> Is there any chance you could find time to let me know whether the
> container version of LilyDev will run under any of the
> easily-available container managers (Docker, LXC...)? If it wn't, I
> suppose that I will  have to try to find a Linux version that will
> run on my rather ancient laptop.
>
>

Yes, if you can install Docker, you can use the Dockerfile contributed
by Dan Eble:
https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/tree/master/docker

It would be very useful to upload that Docker image to Docker Hub but I
haven't found the time to do it yet (especially because I'm using
Fedora, which switched to Podman as alternative to Docker.. and Podman
doesn't have yet the Docker-compose feature..).




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: How to use LilyDev without systemd

ptoye
Thursday, January 9, 2020, 11:08:57 AM, Federico Bruni wrote:


> Hi Peter

> Il giorno gio 9 gen 2020 alle 10:18, Peter Toye
> <[hidden email]> ha
> scritto:
>> Dear Federico,

>> Thomas Morley forwarded you an email from
>> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/A-suggestion-add-rf-to-built-in-dynamics-td226659.html

>> One issue in it was that my Linux distro (antiX) does not have
>> systemd, and it appears from the documentation that LilyDev needs it.
>> I am a Linux newbie, and don't fully understand the container system.
>> Apparently you are the expert on this.


> Only the container (Lilydev-1-debian.tar.xz file) needs systemd.
> The virtual machine (LilyDev-1-debian-vm.zip
> file) can be installed in
> VirtualBox or GNOME Boxes (or any libvirt frontend).


> Another option, if you want to keep your
> lilypond dev environment
> separated from your system, is Debootstrap:
> https://wiki.debian.org/Debootstrap

> but then you must set up the system following the CG:
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-compiling-lilypond#ubuntu
> http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/contributor/requirements-for-building-documentation

> and build guile-1.8 using these commands:
> https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/blob/master/mkosi/debian/mkosi.postinst#L42

> (copy lines 23-35 of that file to ~/.bashrc
> before compiling guile-1.8)


>> Is there any chance you could find time to let me know whether the
>> container version of LilyDev will run under any of the
>> easily-available container managers (Docker, LXC...)? If it wn't, I
>> suppose that I will  have to try to find a Linux version that will
>> run on my rather ancient laptop.



> Yes, if you can install Docker, you can use the Dockerfile contributed
> by Dan Eble:
> https://github.com/fedelibre/LilyDev/tree/master/docker

> It would be very useful to upload that Docker
> image to Docker Hub but I
> haven't found the time to do it yet (especially because I'm using
> Fedora, which switched to Podman as alternative to Docker.. and Podman
> doesn't have yet the Docker-compose feature..).

Thanks very much for this. It seems I have quite a few choices. I'll have to go away and have a big think.

Best wishes,

Peter

12