2016-04-03 10:51 GMT+02:00 Pierre Perol-Schneider <[email protected]>: > Hi Harm, Hi All, > > (1) Ok, for deleting.
Deleted. > (2) Those were drafts, even without description. I forgot to work on them. Should I keep them for further work? > (3) I don't know. In France there is some rights for copying few measures in > an article if sources is clearly stated (which I did) I vaguely recall Germany has something akin. We need to be sure world-wide, though. So undecided for now. > (4) same as (2) Please delete, too complicate. Deleted. > (5) Did you notice I've changed the design ? Yep, though you still need to set with-dimensions and the advantage compared with the built-in markup-command still escapes me. Cheers, Harm > > Thank you Harm, > Cheers to All, > > Pierre > > 2016-04-02 14:53 GMT+02:00 Thomas Morley <[email protected]>: >> >> Hi all, >> >> after far to long laziness in approving lsr-snippets, I used >> spring-break to go through them. Most are approved now, sometimes with >> more or less heavy editing. >> Though, there are few left, where I'm not sure how to deal with. >> All by Pierre, thus cc-ing him. >> >> (1) >> "StaffGroup bracket with a variable length (path)" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=989 >> >> This one is obviously a construction helper and the method is used in >> "Repeat-bar-lines with angle-wings for whole StaffGroup (manually)" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=991 >> >> Though, why doing all from scratch and not using brackettips.up/down from >> feta? >> I see no point in keeping "StaffGroup bracket with a variable length >> (path)" and vote for deleting it. >> >> Side-notes: >> a) >> We have >> "Curly bracket with variable length (path)" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=988 >> which indeed prints brackets different from feta, so I have no problem >> with it. >> This method is used in >> "Orchestral grouping with a custom brace" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=986 >> b) >> Additionally I've uploaded >> "Repeat-bar-lines with angle-wings for whole StaffGroup (automatic and >> semi-automatic)" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=1032 >> >> >> (2) >> There are these two snippets: >> >> Instrument name as staff lines >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=981 >> >> Instrument name as staff lines (alternative) >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=983 >> >> Both lack of description. >> Which one should I approve? Or even both? >> >> >> (3) >> "Squeeze and split staff" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=1005 >> >> It really demonstrates the full power of the path-command. >> Though, it recodes an existing image. >> >> The original-pdf can be downloaded at >> http://www.graphire.com/Pages/Framesets/framesmp.htm >> click "Sample Output" -> "Fuqua"-example >> >> Is there a copyright-issue? >> >> >> (4) >> "Worksheet" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=922 >> It demonstrates the use of markup-commands and fullfills the >> snippet-description, nothing more. >> Worth keeping/approving it? >> >> (5) >> "Eyeglasses as markup (path)" >> http://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=982 >> >> It was already discussed at: >> http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/LSR-eyeglasses-snippet-td179471.html >> Though again, any point in keeping it? >> I'd vote for deleting it. >> >> >> I'd love to have some feedback how to proceed with the above mentioned >> snippets. >> >> >> Thanks, >> Harm > > _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
