bug-lilypond
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: Isolated durations and \pageBreak


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Fwd: Isolated durations and \pageBreak
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:26:45 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux)

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 24.09.2014 22:11, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
>>> Betreff:    Isolated durations and \pageBreak
>>> Datum:      Wed, 24 Sep 2014 19:50:33 +0200
>>> Von:        Davide Liessi <address@hidden>
>>> An:         address@hidden <address@hidden>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> Isolated durations don't behave well with \pageBreak.
>>> The following example gives a failed barcheck warning and wrong output.
>>>
>>> %%%%%
>>> \version "2.19.13"
>>> \score {
>>>    \new RhythmicStaff {
>>>      R1 |
>>>      \pageBreak
>>>      1~ |
>>>      8 r r4 r2 |
>>>    }
>>> }
>>> %%%%%
>> This example is actually problematic since there is no pitched note
>> anywhere before 1~.  The visuals will likely be ok but Midi, if any,
>> will have no pitch to go by.
>
> OK, I can understand that it is a similar situation as with the
> ambiguous midi volume warnings. But then I'd expect a warning (or a
> misbehaviour) in that domain and not a change in the timing structure.

Well, "the visuals will likely be ok" was supposed to mean "the visuals
would likely be ok in spite of this, once the error I acknowledge below
is fixed".  Not easy to decipher, I admit, but otherwise the rest I
wrote would not have made a lot of sense.

>> However, \pagebreak indeed disrupts the pitch/chord copying when one
>> corrects this, for example by replacing R1 with c1.
>>
>>> Either commenting \pageBreak, adding an explicit pitch to 1~ or adding
>>> an explicitly pitched note *after* the \pageBreak result in no
>>> barcheck warnings and correct output.
>>> Adding an explicitly pitched note *before* the \pageBreak still gives
>>> the barcheck warning and wrong output.
>> Yup.

-- 
David Kastrup




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]