Updates to bagpipe.ly

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-01-01 23:35:53]

looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.

http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2 'Staff)
err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them with old
beaming rules?

[svenax, 2011-01-02 11:23:37]

On 2 January 2011 00:35,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
> looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.
>
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
> File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
> ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2
> 'Staff)
> err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them
> with old beaming rules?
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/
>

Because the new beaming rules don't do what they should. I guess I'd
better look into how to make new beaming rules work right instead of
using my old ones, though.

I'll have a go at that.

Thanks

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[svenax, 2011-01-02 11:56:39]

On 2 January 2011 12:23, Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 January 2011 00:35,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
>> File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
>> ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2
>> 'Staff)
>> err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them
>> with old beaming rules?
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/
>>
>
> Because the new beaming rules don't do what they should. I guess I'd
> better look into how to make new beaming rules work right instead of
> using my old ones, though.

Just to clarify, the beaming should be strict - if I say beam to
quarter notes, the autobeamer should not break at other intervals if
it feels like it.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[c_sorensen, 2011-01-02 14:31:00]

On 1/2/11 4:56 AM, "Sven Axelsson" <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 January 2011 12:23, Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2 January 2011 00:35,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
>>> File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):
>>> 
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
>>> ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2
>>> 'Staff)
>>> err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them
>>> with old beaming rules?
>> 
>> Because the new beaming rules don't do what they should. I guess I'd
>> better look into how to make new beaming rules work right instead of
>> using my old ones, though.
> 
> Just to clarify, the beaming should be strict - if I say beam to
> quarter notes, the autobeamer should not break at other intervals if
> it feels like it.

I think that beaming is strict with the new rules.

The difference between what you have above and the new autobeaming code is
that *all* beaming rules are done by time signature now; you can't put a
setting to have beaming to quarter notes in all time signatures.

I'd be happy to help you write a music function to get the desired behavior
if you'll explain it to me.

Thanks,

Carl

[svenax, 2011-01-02 15:02:46]

On 2 January 2011 15:30, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> wrote:
> On 1/2/11 4:56 AM, "Sven Axelsson" <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2 January 2011 12:23, Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 2 January 2011 00:35,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
>>>> File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):
>>>>
>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
>>>> ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2
>>>> 'Staff)
>>>> err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them
>>>> with old beaming rules?
>>>
>>> Because the new beaming rules don't do what they should. I guess I'd
>>> better look into how to make new beaming rules work right instead of
>>> using my old ones, though.
>>
>> Just to clarify, the beaming should be strict - if I say beam to
>> quarter notes, the autobeamer should not break at other intervals if
>> it feels like it.
>
> I think that beaming is strict with the new rules.
>
> The difference between what you have above and the new autobeaming code is
> that *all* beaming rules are done by time signature now; you can't put a
> setting to have beaming to quarter notes in all time signatures.
>
> I'd be happy to help you write a music function to get the desired behavior
> if you'll explain it to me.

Thanks, that would be most helpful. I see that it was you who changed
it to use beamExceptions in the first place ...

Attached are examples using \quarterBeaming with an empty
beamExceptions list (what is currently in bagpipe.ly), and using
override-auto-beam-setting the way I want it to look.

As for \halfBeaming, it actually looks like the defaults work well
enough now. These beaming rules are from 2.10 or so, and I haven't
bothered with them since.

All the best

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[c_sorensen, 2011-01-02 15:27:11]

On 1/2/11 8:02 AM, "Sven Axelsson" <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2 January 2011 15:30, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> wrote:
>> On 1/2/11 4:56 AM, "Sven Axelsson" <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2 January 2011 12:23, Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2 January 2011 00:35,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> looks mostly ok, but I don't know what's up with those beaming rules.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly
>>>>> File ly/bagpipe.ly (right):
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/diff/1/ly/bagpipe.ly#newcode72
>>>>> ly/bagpipe.ly:72: #(override-auto-beam-setting '(end * * * *) 1 2
>>>>> 'Staff)
>>>>> err, why are you removing the good beaming rules, and replacing them
>>>>> with old beaming rules?
>>>> 
>>>> Because the new beaming rules don't do what they should. I guess I'd
>>>> better look into how to make new beaming rules work right instead of
>>>> using my old ones, though.
>>> 
>>> Just to clarify, the beaming should be strict - if I say beam to
>>> quarter notes, the autobeamer should not break at other intervals if
>>> it feels like it.
>> 
>> I think that beaming is strict with the new rules.
>> 
>> The difference between what you have above and the new autobeaming code is
>> that *all* beaming rules are done by time signature now; you can't put a
>> setting to have beaming to quarter notes in all time signatures.
>> 
>> I'd be happy to help you write a music function to get the desired behavior
>> if you'll explain it to me.
> 
> Thanks, that would be most helpful. I see that it was you who changed
> it to use beamExceptions in the first place ...

Are you using 2.13.x?  The autobeam rules have changed in 2.13.x.  The
2.12.x rules don't work any more.

> 
> Attached are examples using \quarterBeaming with an empty
> beamExceptions list (what is currently in bagpipe.ly), and using
> override-auto-beam-setting the way I want it to look.

override-auto-beam-setting doesn't work in 2.13.  Please try your example in
2.13.

Thanks,

Carl

[svenax, 2011-01-02 15:48:14]

On 2 January 2011 16:27, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> wrote:
> override-auto-beam-setting doesn't work in 2.13.  Please try your example in
> 2.13.

Yes, I just realised that myself. Sorry about that.

I have updated http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/ accordingly.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[svenax, 2011-01-02 20:43:13]

On 2 January 2011 16:48, Sven Axelsson <sven.axelsson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 January 2011 16:27, Carl Sorensen <c_sorensen@byu.edu> wrote:
>> override-auto-beam-setting doesn't work in 2.13.  Please try your example in
>> 2.13.
>
> Yes, I just realised that myself. Sorry about that.
>
> I have updated http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/ accordingly.

I have now actually tried the tweaks in latest 2.13 - should have done
that right away, sorry about that. I notice that the gracenotes are
sometimes set even tighter than with 2.12. And because of that the
Score.Stem #'beamlet-default-length tweak doesn't look so good. But
using Score.Stem #'beamlet-max-length-proportion instead gives the
desired effect.

I also got a request from a user to add a grace note variation i had
missed. And a little spacing tweak to the stacked tenuto symbols.

So, http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043 is now updated hopefully for
the final time.

All the best.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[Graham Percival (old account), 2011-01-02 23:39:15]

LGTM, could you send me a patch to apply?  (git format-patch origin)

[svenax, 2011-01-03 08:52:59]

On 3 January 2011 00:39,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
> LGTM, could you send me a patch to apply?  (git format-patch origin)
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/
>

The patches are downloadabe from Rietveld.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[Graham Percival, 2011-01-03 09:12:24]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 09:52:58AM +0100, Sven Axelsson wrote:
> On 3 January 2011 00:39,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
> > LGTM, could you send me a patch to apply?  (git format-patch origin)
> >
> > http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/
> 
> The patches are downloadabe from Rietveld.

But unfortunately not with your name, email address, and commit
message -- they're raw patches only.  I think it's nice to give
you credit for this work, so please do a "git format-patch origin"
and send me the patch.

Cheers,
- Graham

[svenax, 2011-01-03 09:26:22]

On 3 January 2011 10:12, Graham Percival <graham@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 09:52:58AM +0100, Sven Axelsson wrote:
>> On 3 January 2011 00:39,  <percival.music.ca@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > LGTM, could you send me a patch to apply?  (git format-patch origin)
>> >
>> > http://codereview.appspot.com/3825043/
>>
>> The patches are downloadabe from Rietveld.
>
> But unfortunately not with your name, email address, and commit
> message -- they're raw patches only.  I think it's nice to give
> you credit for this work, so please do a "git format-patch origin"
> and send me the patch.

You mean in order to put the blame on me :)

The latest patch attached.

Thanks a lot.

-- 
Sven Axelsson
++++++++++[>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++>++++++
>++++<<<<<-]>++++.+.++++.>+++++.>+.<<-.>>+.>++++.<<.
+++.>-.<<++.>>----.<++.>>>++++++.<<<<.>>++++.<----.

[Graham Percival, 2011-01-03 10:40:52]

On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 10:26:20AM +0100, Sven Axelsson wrote:
> The latest patch attached.

Thanks, pushed.  It'll appear in 2.13.46.

Cheers,
- Graham