Phil Holmes email at philholmes.net writes:
Same problem as 2.15.9 - I think the change of spacing from the clef to the
first note means that almost every regtest is different.
I looked through the 2.15.10 vs .9 comparison and recognized the cause of most
changes Those I didn't
- Original Message -
From: Patrick McCarty pnor...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: Finding commits
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Phil Holmes em...@philholmes.net wrote:
To verify
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
p
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
Would you be tempted to use either
a) \relative f { x???
b) \relative f??? { x
(and which one?) if you realized it worked just the same?
well, b) is nearer to my current idiom;
I can see that a) has
2011/9/12 Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com:
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
And my two cents: I never do that.
My rationale: in an (admittedly quite rare) case i want to paste the
contents of one relative to another relative, having
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
And my two cents: I never do that.
My rationale: in an (admittedly quite rare) case i want to paste the
contents of one relative to another relative, having various starting
pitches forces me to think
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
Would you be tempted to use either
a) \relative f { x???
b) \relative f??? { x
(and which one?) if you realized it worked just the same?
well, b) is nearer to
Hi all,
I'm going to fix an issue where a note is misplaced by about 0.07
staffspace. I'll add a regtest for this, but how will we make sure
that it won't be overlooked in the future? When we watch a regtest
comparison, it shows us the output in a quite low-resolution
rasterized form; it will
Seems like I am starting the wrong popular revolution. I ask Isn't
\relative f nice? and people say Sure, but let's call it \relative { }
instead, never mind that the name is taken.
You are the second in a row, and if I understand Basso Profundo
correctly (he has not followed up yet), his
Benkő Pál benko@gmail.com writes:
\relative x??? { x
Namely start with the starting pitch.
my two cents: I always do that.
And my two cents: I never do that.
My rationale: in an (admittedly quite rare) case i want to paste the
contents of one relative to another relative, having
Am Monday, 12. September 2011, 12:01:25 schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi all,
I'm going to fix an issue where a note is misplaced by about 0.07
staffspace. I'll add a regtest for this, but how will we make sure
that it won't be overlooked in the future? When we watch a regtest
comparison, it
Am Monday, 12. September 2011, 12:01:53 schrieb David Kastrup:
Actually, I noticed just now that built-in music functions are
documented in lilypond-notation, and of course all of my work on music
functions has resulted in borking this documentation.
The documentation is extracted from the
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com writes:
Am Monday, 12. September 2011, 12:01:53 schrieb David Kastrup:
Actually, I noticed just now that built-in music functions are
documented in lilypond-notation, and of course all of my work on music
functions has resulted in borking this
2011/9/12 Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de:
Am 11.09.2011 22:35, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
[...]
The only thing that comes to my mind is that some settings from the
previous configuration of make (when there was no separate build/)
slipped to the current configuration. The only way that i know to
2011/9/12 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
2011/9/12 Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de:
Do I understand issue 1135 right - the scheme functions should get listed
on out-www/offline-root/Documentation/internals/scheme-functions.html?
Or am I searching on the wrong place?
I'm not the one who
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4969076/diff/1/ly/music-functions-init.ly
File ly/music-functions-init.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4969076/diff/1/ly/music-functions-init.ly#newcode794
ly/music-functions-init.ly:794: Make a partial measure.
(_i Make a partial measure.)
indent
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
2011/9/12 Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de:
Am 11.09.2011 22:35, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
[...]
The only thing that comes to my mind is that some settings from the
previous configuration of make (when there was no separate build/)
slipped to the
LGTM.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4837050/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Am 12.09.2011 12:56, schrieb Neil Puttock:
2011/9/12 Janek Warchołjanek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
2011/9/12 Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de:
Do I understand issue 1135 right - the scheme functions should get listed
on out-www/offline-root/Documentation/internals/scheme-functions.html?
Or am I searching on
Am 12.09.2011 12:59, schrieb David Kastrup:
Janek Warchołjanek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
2011/9/12 Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de:
Am 11.09.2011 22:35, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
[...]
The only thing that comes to my mind is that some settings from the
previous configuration of make (when there was
Am 12.09.2011 14:41, schrieb Neil Puttock:
On 12 September 2011 13:32, Marc Hohlm...@hohlart.de wrote:
ok, but does that mean that issue 1135 can be closed?
As mentioned elsewhere, I replaced @findex by @funindex in
scm/document-identifiers.scm
but this seems to change nothing ...
Did you
On 12 September 2011 13:49, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Not as long as I have not checked and pushed appropriate changes.
I don't see how that's relevant. You've broken the way the argument
list is documented for each function. That has no bearing on the way
music functions are indexed.
Neil Puttock n.putt...@gmail.com writes:
On 12 September 2011 13:49, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Not as long as I have not checked and pushed appropriate changes.
I don't see how that's relevant. You've broken the way the argument
list is documented for each function. That has no
On 12 September 2011 13:47, Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de wrote:
I created a new directory, made a git repository from scratch,
changed the one line and did
make all
make doc
Hmm, in that case, I'm not sure why it doesn't work. I assume you
changed the offending line to this:
@funindex \\~a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 08:53:01AM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote:
I know (I think..) James now does the regtest comparison for every
patch.
He does not. And even if he did, he would be comparing the
individual effects of each individual patch, not the total effect
of them all. It's not impossible
LGTM
Werner
http://codereview.appspot.com/4639065/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:56PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
ok, but does that mean that issue 1135 can be closed?
As mentioned elsewhere, I replaced @findex by @funindex in
scm/document-identifiers.scm
but this seems to change nothing ...
That should make the functions appear in both
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:44:33AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Now I don't like having two different syntaxes for \relative,
but I guess Graham would kill me if I proposed just leaving
\relative { ... } in place with a new meaning.
Yeah, that's so not happening. Come up with a different name
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:44:33AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Now I don't like having two different syntaxes for \relative,
but I guess Graham would kill me if I proposed just leaving
\relative { ... } in place with a new meaning.
Yeah,
Am 12.09.2011 15:33, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 02:32:56PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
ok, but does that mean that issue 1135 can be closed?
As mentioned elsewhere, I replaced @findex by @funindex in
scm/document-identifiers.scm
but this seems to change nothing ...
That
David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 12, 2011 3:18 PM
I'd propose something like
+If you carefully consider all the rules above and remember that
the
+octave of absolute pitches also is specified disregarding any
+accidentals, one rather interesting consequence is that the first
note
+in
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:40:42PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
They appear both in E and F - before the patch, they were listed in F only.
Is this ok? Then the attached patch is probably ready to push.
thanks, pushed.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net
To: Patrick McCarty pnor...@gmail.com
Cc: Devel lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: Finding commits
- Original Message -
From: Patrick McCarty pnor...@gmail.com
To: Phil Holmes
LGTM.
Is there any way to also move \time, \key, \repeat and \alternative from
the parser?
Bertrand
http://codereview.appspot.com/4969076/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
bordage.bertr...@gmail.com writes:
LGTM.
Is there any way to also move \time, \key, \repeat and \alternative
from the parser?
\time has a weird syntax with optional assignment
\key can take a \default argument
\repeat only takes an _optional_ \alternative
So no. I am not sure about other
I'm currently investigating how to implement measure counters (Bug 146):
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=146
Compared to multi-measure rest numbers and to percent repeat numbers, there is
a little complication: There is no grob to attach the numbers to (the percent
repeat
On 12 September 2011 20:03, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
Any idea how to implement this?
Shouldn't it just be a spanner whose bounds are the left column and
right column for each bar? Similar to a full-bar rest or percent
repeat.
Cheers,
Neil
there are problems: the patch as is fails the mensural-ligatures
regtest. see below.
p
http://codereview.appspot.com/4639065/diff/13002/lily/mensural-ligature.cc
File lily/mensural-ligature.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4639065/diff/13002/lily/mensural-ligature.cc#newcode147
Am Monday, 12. September 2011, 21:14:11 schrieb Neil Puttock:
On 12 September 2011 20:03, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com
wrote:
Any idea how to implement this?
Shouldn't it just be a spanner whose bounds are the left column and
right column for each bar? Similar to a full-bar
On 12 September 2011 20:45, Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@kainhofer.com wrote:
Exactly, that was my idea. My problem is that I can't do it like in the
percent repeat case, where we have percent-repeat-events (generated in the
iterator), which start at the right moment and have the correct
Pushed as 12449405eb89bb45d49d3dd3a37bdfcebda3ceaa.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4969076/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2011/09/06 16:42:34, Bertrand Bordage wrote:
Ok, DynamicText and DynamicLineSpanner should be removed.
But what about the others?
I think they should be added.
cheers,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/4387046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
2011/9/12 Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, September 12, 2011 3:18 PM
I'd propose something like
+If you carefully consider all the rules above and remember that the
+octave of absolute pitches also is specified disregarding any
+accidentals, one rather
Hi Bertrand,
can you tell me what needs work in this patch? I've read Mike's
comments, but i don't understand what should be done. I have a strong
feeling that it should be patch-review.
It's a nice work and i'd like to see it implemented.
cheers,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/4807053/
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:18:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
I'm reluctant to add the suggestion of \relative f' { to the
tutorial since all the examples are variants of c.
Personally, I don't think \relative f' is all that interesting.
On 2011/09/12 21:35:03, janek wrote:
can you tell me what needs work in this patch? I've read Mike's
comments, but i
don't understand what should be done.
This patch contains many copy/paste from the arpeggio engraver. We
obviously need a new grob, since the braces need some special grob
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:18:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
I'm reluctant to add the suggestion of \relative f' { to the
tutorial since all the examples are variants of c.
Personally,
Thanks for your reviews!
On 2011/09/12 19:16:26, benko.pal wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/4639065/diff/13002/lily/mensural-ligature.cc#newcode147
lily/mensural-ligature.cc:147: Direction stem_dir = stem ?
get_grob_direction
(stem) : CENTER;
this is unneeded: there are no stemmed notes
Hi,
i've looked at latest screenshot attached to tracker issue and... wow!
It looks really great!
I have only small suggestions about some sizes.
You've put a lot of work into this!
thanks,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/4639065/diff/13002/ly/engraver-init.ly
File ly/engraver-init.ly
2011/9/13 bordage.bertr...@gmail.com:
On 2011/09/12 21:35:03, janek wrote:
can you tell me what needs work in this patch? I've read Mike's
comments, but i
don't understand what should be done.
This patch contains many copy/paste from the arpeggio engraver. We
obviously need a new grob,
Hi,
I've noticed that accidental glyphs don't mix well with text: their
baseline is incorrect, and their size doesn't match the letters. Look
at the chordnames resulting from input below: the accidentals are too
big. If they were of correct height, they would become too thin and
generally too
2011/9/13 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 04:18:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
I'm reluctant to add the suggestion of \relative f' { to the
tutorial since all the
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:20:47AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
But this is *not* appropriate for the
tutorial. I will be very unhappy if you put it there.
It already went in with the last batch of patches
I am very unhappy.
Trust me.
Hi,
i'm pretty confused about how note columns shift is measured (line 277
and following in note-collision.cc). I tried modifying the values
there, but the results were quite unexpected; i tried to trace in what
unit is shift_amount measured but to no avail. Could you enlighten
me?
(my idea to
Passes make and I get a few reg test differences.
See
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1814#c10
for attachments,
http://codereview.appspot.com/4986042/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
On 2011/09/12 22:54:44, J_lowe wrote:
Passes make and I get a few reg test differences.
Thanks. They are all expected.
Pushed as a1ce4a26eb893c1f752d260394a977ab811e3368
cheers,
Janek
http://codereview.appspot.com/4986042/
___
lilypond-devel
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:20:47AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
But this is *not* appropriate for the
tutorial. I will be very unhappy if you put it there.
It already went in with the last
Reviewers: Bertrand Bordage,
Message:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1883
Description:
change longas similarly to how breves were changed
Put vertical lines farther apart,
make them longer to increase readability
and include them in X-extent.
Please review this at
For 22:00 MDT Wednesday, September 14
Issue 456 http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=456:
\laissezVibrer in chords - R 4969069
http://codereview.appspot.com/4969069/
Issue 1876 http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1876:
MusicXML: fix case when some elements have
I think the solution is to create a shorter variaton of accidental
glyphs; an example in the attachment. How do you like this idea?
Do you think all accidentals should have shorter versions, or would
it be overkill to create for example a shorter version of 3-stemmed
sharp or arrowed flat?
60 matches
Mail list logo
