LGTM; since it's just a snippet now, I support pushing it directly as
long as it compiles.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
The basic question is this: is this test helpful for programmers? At
first glance I'd say that it is, provided that you update the syntax as
David suggested.
IMO it takes a pretty silly example for something to *not* be a helpful
test case. Sure, having complicated scheme here might mean that
On 2012/03/23 21:46:41, Pavel Roskin wrote:
OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to
strip all
Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of
the
Lilypond documentation.
In LilyPond itself, it makes sense to document the latest version.
Hello,
On 24 March 2012 08:19, d...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2012/03/23 21:46:41, Pavel Roskin wrote:
OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to
strip all
Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of
the
Lilypond documentation.
In
http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/diff/2001/input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly
File input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/diff/2001/input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly#newcode100
On 2012/03/23 13:04:19, Pavel Roskin wrote:
This is also the first use of a scheme engraver in input/regression.
Apart from scheme-engraver.ly, scheme-engraver-instance.ly, and
scheme-text-spanner.ly.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/
___
OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to
strip all Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a
part of the Lilypond documentation. I missed scheme engravers because I
was looking for \consists # on one line, my bad.
