[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 48 and 72 ET
From: |
Hans Åberg |
Subject: |
Re: 48 and 72 ET |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:47:24 +0100 |
> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:44, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:24, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 23:10, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hans Åberg <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 22:47, Cole Ingraham <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've used Sagittal notation based on http://x31eq.com/lilypond/
>>>>>>> before. I don't know if that still works with more recent versions
>>>>>>> though. Haven't touched it in a while.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I get an error in LilyPond 2.19.45, with an unbound variable "parser":
>>>>>>
>>>>>> error: GUILE signaled an error for the expression beginning here
>>>>>> # (ly:parser-set-note-names parser EqualFiftythreePitchNames)
>>>>>> Unbound variable: parser
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any reason people don't use convert-ly when upgrading to a
>>>>> newer version?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe because it is in some library files.
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make sense.
>>
>> The code makes use of three different external libraries.
>
> So? Why wouldn't you upgrade the libraries when upgrading LilyPond?
Those are not my libraries. I updated some, that is hacked them to work, but
that was a year ago.
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, (continued)
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Cole Ingraham, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET,
Hans Åberg <=
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Urs Liska, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10