Re: Annotate and Lilyglyphs

[Urs Liska]

Am 06.02.2015 um 22:00 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:

That sounds like the right way to go -- choose one format for the messages.

OK, I'll think about how to do that.

I don't have much experience with this, but I'm excellent at using trial and error, and happy to help with the testing.

I live in Brisbane, Australia, and do a lot of typesetting for a conductor/composer who lives in Texas, USA. In the few short days I've been using annotate it has already made my communications about changes/corrections so much simpler and accurate.

That's great to hear. I also think it's a big step towards a _unified_ editing experience.
I'm quite appalled to see that there are (serious) people who explicitly do _not_ want such a unified experience and seem to be horrified by the idea of sharing (-> "giving away") responsibility :-(

Best
Urs

Craig

On Sat Feb 07 2015 at 6:54:03 AM Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

Hi Craig,

Am 06.02.2015 um 20:28 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:

Hi Urs,

I worked out one of the problems.

Thank you for testing. This at least shows me where the problem is - unfortunately an area I'm quite unfamiliar with ...

If there is only one lilyglyph in the message, surrounding it with the "@"-s is fine.

This works:

    message = "Is this @\lilyDynamics{p}@ necessary?"

If there are two lilyglyphs in the one annotate message the "@"-s need to surround both.

This doesn't work:

    message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{}@ go all the way to the @address@hidden"

This does work:

    message = "Should this @\crescHairpin{} go all the way to the address@hidden"

OK, the problem seems to be that the regular _expression_ that matches "any text between two "@" characters" doesn't correctly work when there are more than two such characters in the string. I would have to sort out how that regular _expression_ can match these pairs independently.

Your solution just circumvents the problem but is actually not acceptable (means: it is not acceptable that such a workaround is necessary) because that means that *anything* between the two LaTeX expressions will be also parsed literally, which may be OK in cases but may also cause trouble in other cases, e.g.

  message = "The @\crotchet is wrong (see #12), but the  \quaver@ should be fine."

Here I'd want the # to be printed (referencing an issue in the tracker), but as it is it would be printed literally instead of  the escaped version \#.

But this makes me think if that hybrid approach of possibly mixed plain text and LaTeX code is really a good idea after all. Maybe it would be better to decide about a format for messages and simply treat the message consequently. That would mean there should be a global option saying "message body is entered as plaintext|latex|markdown|html" (as a project wide preference) and/or there can be a local property in an annotation saying
  message-format = "latex"

What do you think?

Urs

I still can't get italic text to work.

@address@hidden

Craig

On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 10:34:48 AM Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

Am 06.02.2015 um 01:32 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:

Thanks Urs,

I had to try many different combinations, and don't ask me why, but this is what I eventually found worked:

@\crescHairpin{}

and

\lilyDynamics{ff}@

Why one of them needs the "@" symbol at the start and the other at the end I don't know.

I still can't get any variation of @\textit{dim.}@ to work.

Craig

Hm, well, that's definitely not what it should be like.
I'll try to have a look ASAP.

Urs

On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 8:37:56 AM Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

Am 05.02.2015 um 23:19 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:

Hi all,

I'm having some trouble getting the Lilyglyphs to display in Latex after exporting the annotate inp file.

Do you put the Lilyglyphs code into the annotate message section? 

e.g.

message = "This \decrescHairpin\ is very long. Would a \textit{dim.} be better?"

or 

message = "Should this \crescHairpin\ go all the way to the \ff?"

Many thanks,

You can put arbitrary LaTeX code - and that includes lilyglyphs - in a message section, but you have to enclose everything in "@"-s.
Normally LaTeX special characters are escaped so that they _print_ as desired, so
message = "Here you should use \crescHairpin"
would be translated to the following in the .inp file:
{Here you should use \textbackslash crescHairpin}

I think your above examples should be written as:

message = "This @\decrescHairpin@ is very long. Would a @\textit{dim.}@ be better?"
message = "Should this @\crescHairpin@ go all the way to the @\lilyDynamics{ff}@"

HTH
Urs

Craig

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user