Re: "unroll code"

[Hwaen Ch'uqi]

Greetings All,

I am by no means offering up a solution to "unroll" code, but I
certainly was  intrigued by the question, because, as a composer, I
have had instances where such an ability would have been  immensely
useful. When I felt fluent enough in Lily to use variables (or, for
that matter, "q" for chordal repetition), I applied the "shortcuts"
with enthusiasm and - foolishly - with abandon. Inevitably, I would
later desire to make fine alterations in the completed score, but
doing so would often force me to burst the tight construction I had
coded, resulting in much manual unrolling. After a while, application
of such general substitutions came to seem dangerously risky business
for a composer but incredibly beneficial for a transcriber of a fixed
artifact. This is why I no longer use these tools, preferring to write
out all the information directly in the \score block and, in the end,
saving myself an untold amount of time.

Hwaen Ch'uqi


On 5/14/16, Gianmaria Lari <address@hidden> wrote:
> Thank you to Robert Schmaus, Andrew Bernard, David Wright  for the
> suggestions.
>
> I try to be more precise.
> It's not that really I need to be able to enroll some lilypond code.
> (1) I was curios to know if LP or Frescobaldi give this functionality
> (2) I thought that maybe this functionality was available because LP
> compiler probably create a intermediate enrolled structure (substituting
> variable with their contents, substituing function like "\traspose" with
> the
> trasnposed music etc.).
> (3) I have written some lilypond music in a terrible way and I would be
> curios to see it in a more linear way :)
>
> I also thought that having the music enrolled would be the preliminary step
> for the opposite process. Having an alghorithm that looks for repetition
> and
> try to rewrite the music in a more more compacted way (using repetition,
> transpose etc. etc.)
>
> As you can understand this is very much a curiosity than a need. But I'm
> expecially curious about (2).
>
> The Robert idea: LP -> Midi -> LP is correct but I have some experience
> going from Midi to LP and I always hope to be able to avoid it :) As Andrew
> and David point out you need a lot of work after the conversion. In my
> opinion this is to be considered possible only just in theory or for
> simple/short music.
> g.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/unroll-code-tp190602p190618.html
> Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>