[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution
From: |
Thomas Morley |
Subject: |
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:49:24 +0100 |
Hi David, Phil,
2012/2/20 David Nalesnik <address@hidden>:
> Hi again,
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:03 PM, David Nalesnik <address@hidden>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Harm,
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Morley
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't manage to fix:
>>>
>>> mixed-meter---automatic-compound-time-signatures.ly
>
>
> A little more exploring led me to \compoundMeter...
>
> This snippet shouldn't be necessary anymore.
>
> It can be replaced with:
>
> {
> %\compoundMeter #'((3 2 2 3 8)) ;; numerators over a single denominator
> \compoundMeter #'((3 8) (2 8) (2 8) (3 8)) ;; each numerator with its own
> denominator, as in the snippet
> \repeat unfold 10 c'8 \repeat unfold 20 c'16
> }
>
> -David
>
many thanks for your work on the mixed-meter-file.
I had a look at complex-compound-time-signatures.ly ( =
http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=743 ) and I'd agree:
mixed-meter---automatic-compound-time-signatures.ly should be deleted.
Sorry for not comparing them before.
Now we have an updated
mixed-meter---automatic-compound-time-signatures.ly and we realized
that it could be deleted.
Phil: What to do with this file and the other deleting candidates
mentioned by Carl?
So, only one file left: filtering-parts-from-the-command-line.ly
Thanks,
Harm
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, (continued)
- 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
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution,
Thomas Morley <=
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Phil Holmes, 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 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 Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, David Nalesnik, 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 Kastrup, 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Thomas Morley, 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, Graham Percival, 2012/02/23