The description looks really nice, but unfortunately i think i don't
grasp the consequences of this change. Could you give some before/after
input examples?
Does this have anything to do with what you proposed in [GLISS] turn
xxx.yyy into (xxx yyy)?
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561053/
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g.
\new Voice \with { \no StringNumber }
It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's actually
more a problem of \with than of \omit: every other command working on
Maybe just dump the waste of time that was
\override 'control-points
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/1/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6489086/diff/11/lily/accidental-placement.cc
File lily/accidental-placement.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6489086/diff/11/lily/accidental-placement.cc#newcode377
lily/accidental-placement.cc:377: Real offset =
-ape-horizontal_skylines_[RIGHT].distance
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:44:27PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes:
{
\at 4 \
\at 1*2/3 \!
c'1\p
}
[12 days later, and no followup again]
Let's just continue pretending me to be a naysayer then.
You demonstrated that a
On 2012/09/28 06:26:03, janek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 7:33 AM, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote:
what about using \no for turning stencil off? e.g.
\new Voice \with { \no StringNumber }
It is grammatically cuter in connection with \with, but that's
actually
more a problem of \with than
accidental spacing comparison posted as comment 4 in issue 2141
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2141#c4
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:56 AM, k-ohara5...@oco.net wrote:
Both Mike and Janek thought the accidentals needed a bit more padding
for close intervals, so I think Janek
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This slows down LilyPond - I haven't done comprehensive tests of how
much. I'm pretty sure it works (the regtest works as expected).
Irrespective of how multiple passes are done, this seems like a
necessary first step.
Note that this patch would not have a time impact if
what about an example like
\afterGrace f1\glissando f'16
?
http://codereview.appspot.com/6567059/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Am 28.09.2012 09:30, schrieb d...@gnu.org:
[...]
And things like \once\no Clef also work reasonably well. The proposed
\single is more awkward, but \single\omit Clef is not that much
better, so maybe \single should change.
I don't feel quite happy with \single either; just a spontaneous idea:
Am 28.09.2012 00:21, schrieb ianhuli...@gmail.com:
Apart from a typo in changes.tely (q.v.), LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
Am 28.09.2012 00:54, schrieb thomasmorle...@googlemail.com:
One tiny addition:
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/scm/bar-line.scm
File scm/bar-line.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/scm/bar-line.scm#newcode1053
scm/bar-line.scm:1053:
Am 28.09.2012 01:38, schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-needs_work
Comment #33 on issue 2790 by pkx1...@gmail.com: Patch: bar-line
interface part 2/2
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2790
Patchy says 'fail on make check' - took an age to
Changing to [talk] tag as the discussion is more at a floating ideas
level now.
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:44:27PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes:
{
\at 4 \
\at 1*2/3 \!
c'1\p
}
- Original Message -
From: Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 9:16 AM
Subject: Compilation error with page-breaking-page-count3.ly
Am 28.09.2012 01:38, schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-needs_work
Am 28.09.2012 10:16, schrieb Marc Hohl:
Am 28.09.2012 01:38, schrieb lilyp...@googlecode.com:
Updates:
Labels: -Patch-new Patch-needs_work
Comment #33 on issue 2790 by pkx1...@gmail.com: Patch: bar-line
interface part 2/2
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2790
Patchy
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Well, it seems to be not as simple as that.
I did a 'make test' on my patch. This fails, obviously.
The console says:
Dissecting...
Writing snippets...
Processing...
Processing
- Original Message -
From: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: philehol...@googlemail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com;
gra...@percival-music.ca; d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org;
re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com
Sent: Thursday, September
- Original Message -
From: Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: Error tracking through the log files [was: Re: Compilation
errorwith page-breaking-page-count3.ly]
I did a 'make test' on my patch. This fails,
Am 28.09.2012 11:45, schrieb Phil Holmes:
- Original Message - From: Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: Error tracking through the log files [was: Re: Compilation
errorwith page-breaking-page-count3.ly]
I did a
Am 28.09.2012 11:38, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Well, it seems to be not as simple as that.
I did a 'make test' on my patch. This fails, obviously.
The console says:
Dissecting...
Writing snippets...
Processing...
Processing
- Original Message -
From: Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Error tracking through the log files [was: Re: Compilation
errorwith page-breaking-page-count3.ly]
Am 28.09.2012 11:38, schrieb David Kastrup:
Marc
Updated glyph. Please review.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Begin LilyPond compile, commit: cd09a4e7f2655f3bec65979a604d8f9f9bf454da
Merged staging, now at: 0d09cf7fd29ae8f746b58f4c6c3b97abee8ce8f7
Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
Success:../configure --disable-optimising
Success:
- Original Message -
From: philehol...@googlemail.com
To: gra...@percival-music.ca
Cc: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 2:44 PM
Subject: Patchy email from PhilH
Begin LilyPond compile, commit: cd09a4e7f2655f3bec65979a604d8f9f9bf454da
Merged staging, now at:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
This is clear, but I've had a think about this and I don't agree. The
natural reference point of the tick is its bottom, not the middle of the
tick, which is a somewhat arbitrary point based on the aesthetics of the
line
- Original Message -
From: Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: philehol...@googlemail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com;
gra...@percival-music.ca; d...@gnu.org; lilypond-devel@gnu.org;
re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com
Sent: Friday, September
On 28 September 2012 15:12, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
- Original Message - From: Janek Warchoł
janek.lilyp...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
Cc: philehol...@googlemail.com; lemzw...@googlemail.com;
gra...@percival-music.ca; d...@gnu.org;
Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net writes:
I'm always a little nervous about simply deleting staging, although I
know this is the correct approach. David - could you give me the
commands needed to delete and recreate staging, please? (Private mail
if you don't want everyone to try this out).
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
Does this convince you?
No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align
to the inside bend of a tick mark.
I suppose that someone might want to use this glyph as something else
than
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
Does this convince you?
No - sorry. I can't envisage any situation where anyone would want to align
to the inside bend of a tick mark.
I suppose that someone might want
- Original Message -
From: James pkx1...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: d...@gnu.org; re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com;
lemzw...@googlemail.com; philehol...@googlemail.com;
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 3:38 PM
Subject: Re: Adds tick
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding the
idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and eating
and was about to reenter discussion when I found that I had already
convinced you, so this is a
On 2012/09/28 15:06:38, janek wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 9:30 AM, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote:
I must be in a controversial mood today since I feel like upholding
the
idea. I had been thinking about it while fetching breakfast and
eating
and was about to reenter discussion when I
I guess this is part of what GLISS is, currently issue 2139 wants to
clarify some usage options
ELuze pointed out that:
---
when reading the line
-d,--define-default=var=val
it is not intuitively clear where to use equal signs - does the 1st
equal sign need to be written when writing -d
The only drawback is that one might want \yes/\no as a pairing for some
different purpose. \no is really a rather important word.
I don't think that this is a problem, at least I've never seen someone
using \no. It's exactly the same amount to type as ##f.
Werner
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/7001/mf/feta-scripts.mf
File mf/feta-scripts.mf (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6568055/diff/7001/mf/feta-scripts.mf#newcode1781
mf/feta-scripts.mf:1781: penlabels (1,2,3,4);
z4 is not defined with penpos4, so you should use `labels'
Hi,
I wanted to test Marc's bar-line-patch somewhat closer, but I have a
problem, not knowing what to do.
I did (because I don't know what went wrong I post every detail):
1. Downloaded the patch from Rietveld and stored it in `0001-bar-line.patch'
2. To get the newest lily-source-code (I'm
Hello,
On 28 September 2012 21:24, Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to test Marc's bar-line-patch somewhat closer, but I have a
problem, not knowing what to do.
I did (because I don't know what went wrong I post every detail):
1. Downloaded the patch from
Trevor--
Thank you so much for taking this on! I've been pecking at documenting
this for awhile, but got hung up on finding the perfect examples... What
you have is clearer than what I cam up with.
https://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/1/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
2012/9/28 James pkx1...@gmail.com:
Hello,
On 28 September 2012 21:24, Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I wanted to test Marc's bar-line-patch somewhat closer, but I have a
problem, not knowing what to do.
I did (because I don't know what went wrong I post every
Thomas Morley thomasmorley65 at googlemail.com writes:
I wanted to test Marc's bar-line-patch somewhat closer, but I have a
problem, not knowing what to do.
git apply --index 0001-bar-line.patch
error: patch failed:
Documentation/snippets/adding-orchestral-cues-to-a-vocal-score.ly:4
Looks good so far.
In one pdf previewer (evince) at low resolution, the span bars look a
little thicker than the regular bar lines. Maybe a rounding fault of
the viewer, but it would be better if you know how to avoid it.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6498052/diff/24001/scm/bar-line.scm
File
43 matches
Mail list logo
