On 26/09/13 18:38, David Kastrup wrote:
You commented on the issue where this patch originated as late as July:
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1278#c7. So
it's hard to argue that it was not discoverable to you.
This July I got an email update from the issue, and
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 26/09/13 18:38, David Kastrup wrote:
You commented on the issue where this patch originated as late as July:
URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1278#c7. So
it's hard to argue that it was not discoverable to
On 26/09/13 17:16, Phil Holmes wrote:
I think it's waiting for someone to propose how it could be represented in
LilyPond. If _someone_ were to do that, it might progress - it was only a few
months ago it was last looked at.
Unfortunately, it was someone putting forward a workaround which I'd
On 26/09/13 17:35, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Unfortunately, it was someone putting forward a workaround which I'd already
proposed and found lacking, as it doesn't play nice with transposition :-(
There was actually a patch submitted which tweaked the internal pitch
representation
Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net writes:
On 26/09/13 17:35, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
Unfortunately, it was someone putting forward a workaround which I'd already
proposed and found lacking, as it doesn't play nice with transposition :-(
There was actually a patch
