Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
\override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = rit.
as
\override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = rit.
I like this.
Voila.
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2883
--
David Kastrup
Warming up a previous discussion because of new insights/ongoing work.
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy
Hello,
On 4 October 2012 09:28, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
..
Using the symbol list form would have the advantage that
\override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = rit.
could equivalently be expressed as
\override TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = rit.
and
James pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
On 4 October 2012 09:28, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
..
Using the symbol list form would have the advantage that
\override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = rit.
could equivalently be expressed as
\override TextSpanner
\override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = rit.
as
\override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = rit.
I like this.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
\override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = rit.
as
\override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = rit.
I like this.
Actually, the recently unified word syntax plays a bit into it as well
since otherwise bound-details would
As a consequence of the current inconsistent \override syntax I
already complained about recently, you will then also be able to
write
\override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details left text = rit.
This I would probably drop (if possible). The dot shows a hierarchy
far better than a space.
Werner LEMBERG w...@gnu.org writes:
As a consequence of the current inconsistent \override syntax I
already complained about recently, you will then also be able to
write
\override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details left text = rit.
This I would probably drop (if possible). The dot shows a
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[..]
So if we want to avoid this kind of fallacy, there are a few ways out.
I decided to take a reasonably safe route by foregoing lookahead for '.'
unless explicitly told so. How does a function tell LilyPond to look
for a
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[..]
So if we want to avoid this kind of fallacy, there are a few ways out.
I decided to take a reasonably safe route by foregoing lookahead for '.'
unless explicitly told so.
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
One rather sobering consequence is that any command accepting a grob
specification will _not_ be able to take a
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a function argument.
At the current point of
On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a function
2012/9/12 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
Basically, if a music function wants to provide a shorthand for an
override, not being able to specify an optional context is a nuisance.
I currently have just the same problem writing a \hide function that is
supposed
David Nalesnik david.nales...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
Basically, if a music function wants to provide a shorthand for an
override, not being able to specify an optional context is a nuisance.
I currently have just the same
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz).
Go!
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Werner LEMBERG writes:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz).
Go!
isn't using symbols
'(xxx yyy zzz)
more scheme-like, schemonic, schemesque?
Jan
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org | GNU LilyPond
Jan Nieuwenhuizen jann...@gnu.org writes:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz).
Go!
isn't using symbols
'(xxx yyy zzz)
more scheme-like, schemonic, schemesque?
Well, this is
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to have music
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Han-Wen Nienhuys hanw...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string.
2012/9/12 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings (xxx yyy zzz). The main
incentive is to be able to
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
2012/9/12 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of
26 matches
Mail list logo
