On 2012/01/11 06:57:48, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)
The notation manual has not been revised yet.
Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the
argument order
and this will, obviously, also
On 2012/01/11 11:45:19, J_lowe wrote:
I've created
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2213 so I'll work
on the NR as I did all the \footnote Doc in the first place.
I am assuming you still have to include your documentation edits in
the patch so that the docs compile?
2012/1/11 d...@gnu.org:
On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)
The notation manual has not been revised yet.
Ok, i misunderstood. Sorry.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Reviewers: J_lowe, carl.d.sorensen_gmail.com, lemzwerg, MikeSol,
Message:
On 2012/01/10 06:29:57, lemzwerg wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py
File python/convertrules.py (right):
On 2012/01/09 20:42:30, J_lowe wrote:
Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote
command as well?
No.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On 2012/01/10 07:08:29, MikeSol wrote:
LGTM. Good work!
The only think I'd ask is that you change the markup syntax before
pushing the
patch. I think that, if the distinction between footnote and
auto-footnote is
going to be eliminated, it needs to be categorical.
Optional arguments
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
But then, one can always define one's own music function that takes care
of that. So no objection from my side.
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default
for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either). One
might consider moving the footnote mark argument to last
On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default
for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either). One
might
consider
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:28:46 +, d...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use
\default
for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mark
m...@apollinemike.com writes:
Actually, one could juggle the order of arguments around such that
the optional arguments can't be confused with the next argument.
Like putting the footnote mark first, position next, Grob spec next,
footnote text last. In that manner, you could leave off
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Well, scanning for \markup ... will be quite more of a challenge.
Another problem I see is coordinating the change with the equally-named
\footnote markup command. I have to see how that is defined.
On the plus side, most user files will likely be using
On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
Well, scanning for \markup ... will be quite more of a challenge.
Another problem I see is coordinating the change with the equally-named
\footnote markup command. I have to see how that is defined.
On
m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:
On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
What's that? auto-numbering will only be active if
footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout? Which it isn't by
default? And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:
On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
What's that? auto-numbering will only be active if
footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout? Which it isn't by
default? And
m...@apollinemike.com m...@apollinemike.com writes:
On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
footnote-auto-numbering is present in the _code_. This is not just a
question of the doc string. There _is_ user-level documentation in
the notation manual (as a warning) mentioning,
There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1053
On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)
The notation manual has not been revised yet.
Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the
argument order and this will, obviously, also affect the manual both
with respect to
Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote
command as well?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Looks *very* good to me!
I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
users. Thanks for doing this!
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On 9 January 2012 20:49, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
Looks *very* good to me!
I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
users. Thanks for doing this!
On the shoulders of Giants eh David ;)
I can help with the doc if you like, perhaps download the diff file
Thanks, David!
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py
File python/convertrules.py (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py#newcode3362
python/convertrules.py:3362:
From an orthogonal point of view, those variables should be either named
LGTM. Good work!
The only think I'd ask is that you change the markup syntax before
pushing the patch. I think that, if the distinction between footnote
and auto-footnote is going to be eliminated, it needs to be categorical.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
24 matches
Mail list logo
