Re: Problem with remove bar number/ why I'm not upgrading to the new stable version

[Thomas Morley]

Hi Jay,

2012/10/25 David Kastrup <address@hidden>:
> Jay Hamilton <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Janek-
>> I'm not going to do that. Here's a few reasons why.
>> I've been using lilypond since some kind of 1.... version. Some of the
>> stable versions have been baby steps and easy to accommodate and
>> understand. Many many of the changes that have been taking place in V2
>> have not been like that. It took me a year to figure out all the
>> changes during the last two stable versions. And now there is a new
>> one and just looking at the templates I realize that I have no idea
>> what is going on and that the program has now reached a level of
>> complexity that defeats my purposes- to produce a good looking, in a
>> quick way, sheet of music for students and professional musicians.
>
>
> Well, obviously I am rather partial here, but I quite disagree with your
> assessment here.

+1

[...]
> For the normal user, things have not changed all that much.  Lots of
> typesetting tasks are now done better without user intervention.  The
> documentation is improving quite a bit.  Many operations are becoming
> more streamlined and logical.  Many weird exceptions are gradually
> disappearing, and a lot of things that previously required deep meddling
> with Scheme programming have become much simpler and don't require
> leaving LilyPond itself all that much.
>
> Check out
> <URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-23&lang=en#feature_story_prelude_1_in_scheme>
> and compare the final version of input I am using here with the version
> from Nicolas Sceaux (referenced in the article) about five years
> earlier.  Things have become much, much simpler to do.

Or look at an example of functionality I need more frequently:

Tweaking single accidentals in a chord:

\version "2.14.2"

smallerAcc =
#(define-music-function (parser location mus) (ly:music?)
  (set! (ly:music-property mus 'tweaks)
   (acons 'before-line-breaking (lambda (grob)
     (let ((accidental (ly:grob-object grob 'accidental-grob)))
      (if (not (null? accidental))
       (ly:grob-set-property! accidental 'font-size  -2))))
    (ly:music-property mus 'tweaks))) mus)

\relative c' {
        <cis \smallerAcc eis gis>4
}

Tweaking a single accidental in a chord with "2.14.2" was very
difficult and I had a hard time learning how to do it while using
"2.12.3" (or was it "2.10.x", I don't remember).

With "2.16.0" you could use:

\tweak Accidental #'font-size #-2

or put it in a function:

smallerAccNew =
#(define-music-function (parser location mus) (ly:music?)
#{
        \tweak Accidental #'font-size #-2
        $mus
#})

\relative c' {
        <cis \smallerAccNew eis gis>4
}

And the old "2.14.2"-definition still works with "2,16,0" !!

Another example:
\accidentalStyle "modern" instead of #(set-accidental-style 'modern)
#(set-accidental-style 'modern) will still work with "2.16.0" !!

A plethora of other examples could be listed.

Ok, there are some features, introduced with "2.14.2", I'm still not
comfortable with myself:
The new spacing and the new beaming-rules.
But you *are* on 2.14. so these might be no arguments here.

Additionally I want to say, that there are many, many improvements
with the new stable, I wouldn't want to miss them.

> Now this might still not be the level you are comfortable with, but it
> is a level that quite a few readers on the user lists actually can work
> with, and consequently you can get help and suggestions here for solving
> your problems.
>
>> So in the course of if it's not broken don't fix it. I'm not going to
>> upgrade to the new version. I'm certain that this will render me
>> without help down the road (like for this issue about bar numbers) but
>> the number of things I see from the lily user group that interest and
>> concern them/you lately are rarely anything I have use for or interest
>> in using.

Well, I do have "2.14.2" and "2.12.3" installed on my computer, so I
could write and test suggestions.
Regarding your BarNumber-problem:
I tested the suggestion by Toine Schreurs
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-10/msg00465.html
and it worked on my machine (with 2.14.2). There was no follow-up from
you, so I thought the problem was solved.

>> I'm sorry, perhaps lily is becoming a better program but it's not
>> becoming a better piece of software from this user's perspective. And
>> hasn't been in the last few iterations, it's just changed.

I disagree again. LilyPond *is* becoming a *much* better programm for users.
It becomes easier and easier to use.
Sometimes I'm afraid that the gap between the knowledge of a
medium-level-user and a core developer will raise to an amount that
will make it more difficult for that medium-level-user to do some more
advanced tasks, because he has to learn _much_ more, before he could
do some programming like scheme-definitions/functions.

> The typesetting has improved much (lots of collision and spacing issues
> have been tackled), and _lots_ of documents will just convert cleanly
> with convert-ly to the rather few syntax changes.  So even if you don't
> want to make use of any new features or possibilities, upgrading is
> likely to improve your existing scores.

+1

> --
> David Kastrup


Best,
  Harm