| Re: [frogs] Re: convert-ly keySignautre issue nearly solved |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lilynet.net/frogs Archives
]
- To: Mats Bengtsson <mats.bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [frogs] Re: convert-ly keySignautre issue nearly solved
- From: Andrew Hawryluk <ahawryluk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 21:34:49 -0600
- Cc: frogs@xxxxxxxxxxx, "Carl D. Sorensen" <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>, lilypond-devel <lilypond-devel@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eVW9K+4tpZHUjW5D1S4JAYKVxpcn54PMykgNdoXMsg8=; b=Y8bLrWJQgEo8OLvUEWErOtRiKeo/I/f32RMiHC0h/o8pcLe0gEpDZAPT93i2sG/OcQ XNSuIvPfIrRBQrm5UJNLS6MWIhjkNIFPE7gIn7QwJBRxXp50vcxtzS4k7IouJF4uC11E Ev2XQTaHzlSfS5Qc4zCZdebFnRiV7htWLT5k8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=d4oFfVZ1xxwAQUXOfB5uGxQ8NN0uvV1GMsFUuxzQIU5qR+CNvvjTXTal0YeN6oNFvR CC6l33wxoKMjTyVcvUH5nwWvRdtxPu2coZ6GV1TViQNG9bWoXI6JfCQ/gP5fyjtBx67O ysFg4RyGowhSCRTXuEUGu1E/bBbaPPf9komTs=
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:40 AM, Mats Bengtsson
<mats.bengtsson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting "Carl D. Sorensen" <c_sorensen@xxxxxxx>:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/12/09 11:14 PM, "Andrew Hawryluk" <ahawryluk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I think I have figured out issue 708:
>>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=708
>>> Before I submit a patch, how do I decide which LP version this goes
>>> under for convert-ly?
>>
>> You will want to see where the keySignature syntax changed.
>
> No it's not that simple. The solution proposed in the bug tracker is really
> only relevant for scores older than version 2.0 (I haven't checked exactly
> which 1.9 version the change happened), when the internal representation for
> accidentals changed to be able to handle quarter tones. In version 1.8 and
> earlier, the alteration +1 meant sharp and -1 meant flat, whereas from
> version 2.0 to version 2.10, +1 meant semi-sharp, +2 meant sharp, -2 meant
> flat and so on.
....
> However, in version 2.11.6, the next change happened to the internal
> representation of alterations. From then, a sharp is represented by +1/2, a
> flat by -1/2 and so on. For all the people who had already used the macros
> SHARP, FLAT, DOUBLE-FLAT and so on, this didn't cause any problems, but for
> those who had kept the numeric representation, you all of a sudden end up
> with a "missing glyph" error if you for example specify +2 or -2.
Excellent. Thanks for the helpful background! I can piece together the
rest of the info I need from convertrules.py.
Andrew
---
----
Join the Frogs!