|
Loading...
|
lilypond-user@gnu.org
[Prev] Thread [Next] | [Prev] Date [Next]
Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik Fri Feb 24 05:01:38 2012
David,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:44 AM, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Nalesnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wasn't able to apply this to the snippet,
>
> Sigh.
>
> \lyricsto "chorus" \new Lyrics \txtChorus
> \lyricsto "verse" \new Lyrics \txtVerseI
> \ifTargetIn ...
>
>
Sorry for being unclear: I did do what you suggested and it didn't fix the
problem. Doing the replacements yields this string of errors:
GNU LilyPond 2.14.2
Processing `filtering-parts-from-the-command-line.ly'
Parsing...
filtering-parts-from-the-command-line.ly:168:16: error: syntax error,
unexpected SCM_TOKEN, expecting EXPECT_MARKUP or EXPECT_MUSIC or EXPECT_SCM
or EXPECT_NO_MORE_ARGS
\ifTargetIn
#'(song) <<
filtering-parts-from-the-command-line.ly:172:16: error: syntax error,
unexpected SCM_TOKEN, expecting EXPECT_MARKUP or EXPECT_MUSIC or EXPECT_SCM
or EXPECT_NO_MORE_ARGS
\ifTargetIn
#'(default) \new Staff <<
filtering-parts-from-the-command-line.ly:173:20: error: syntax error,
unexpected LYRICS_STRING, expecting EXPECT_MARKUP or EXPECT_MUSIC or
EXPECT_SCM or EXPECT_NO_MORE_ARGS
\global \clef
bass
(etc.)
>
> while you are at this snippet: the define-macro at the start is
> ridiculous. Maybe something to do with the module structure of 2.12.
> Replace it with a define (and remove backquote and commata).
>
Thank you--I will do this.
Best,
David
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution, (continued)
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/20
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Kastrup 2012/02/21
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Graham Percival 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Kastrup 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/23
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Kastrup 2012/02/24
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/24 <=
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Kastrup 2012/02/24
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Phil Hézaine 2012/02/24
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Kastrup 2012/02/24
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Phil Hézaine 2012/02/25
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution David Nalesnik 2012/02/26
- Re: LSR updates: was: polychords: a working solution Thomas Morley 2012/02/26