Jump to content

(known) bug? with '=' & 'tie'


o_e

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Don't know if this is a known issue:

 

(setf one '((q g3 = = tie)(q g3 = =)))
(setf two '((q g3 g3 g3 tie)(q g3 = =)))

(get-time-signature one)
-->((4 4 1) (3 4 1)) ;wrong
(get-time-signature two)
-->((3 4 2)) ;correct
 

 

best

 

ole

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct.

'((q g3 = = tie) (q g3 = =))

Check the OMN grammar.

'((q g3 mp = = p) (q g3 = =))

The OMN grammar is quite powerful, is good to know how it works.

(q g3 e pp stacc) = 3/8
(q g3 e - stacc)  = 5/8
(q g3 - - stacc)  = 4/4
Edited by opmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(setf eins '((q g3 = = tie) (q g3 = =)))
(get-time-signature eins)
-->((4 4 1) (3 4 1))

 

I don't understand the idea behind, counting beats in 'eins' I count 6 beats (overall), 'get-time-signature' tells me there are 7 beats (overall) (I would understand: -->((4 4 1) (2 4 1)))

But what I was asking originally was the (imo) inconsistency that 'get-time-signature' reports different results when using pitch-symbols instead of pitch-symbol repeat signs (=) (third pitch-symbol in the example..)?

 

(setf one '((q g3 = = tie)(q g3 = =)))

(get-time-signature one)
-->((4 4 1) (3 4 1))

 

(setf two '((q g3 g3 g3 tie)(q g3 = =)))
(get-time-signature two)
-->((3 4 2))

btw. how can I post my code also in a different font like in your examples..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every symbol <pitch> <length> <velocity> <attribute> after a repeat = or extended repeat == symbol, is counted as a new value.

(q c4 = = tie) = 4/4

Otherwise you need to write:

(q c4 = = c4 tie) = 4/4

which you can if you prefer.

I might write a document which explains the grammar in more details.

Edited by opmo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every symbol <pitch> <length> <velocity> <attribute> after a repeat = or extended repeat == symbol, is counted as a new value.

(q c4 = = tie) = 4/4

Otherwise you need to write:

(q c4 = = c4 tie) = 4/4

which you can if you prefer.

I might write a document which explains the grammar in more details.

Thanks for shed light on this.

Now I understand (a little more :-)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy