Phil Holmes-2 wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ArnoldTheresius" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 8:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Volta enhancements tranche 1 (issue 6398055)
>
>
>> Graham Percival-3 wrote:
>>>
>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/6398055/diff/1/Documentation/de/notation/repeats.itely#newcode245
>>> Documentation/de/notation/repeats.itely:245: @cindex ndex \inStaffSegno
>>> what's an ndex?
>
>>>
>> At the moment I cannot check, where this mistake happend.
>> The original line 254 "@cindex Wiederholungen mit Überbindung", now line
>> 264, should be kept intact.
> ...
> It was in the patch you provided on the web site. I've corrected this and
> applied the other comments and pushed the patch. Tranche 2 next...
>
> --
> Phil Holmes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
>
>
I checked my personal development history.
Originally I did the whole staff in one source tree. There I wrote
»@funindex \inStaffSegno«.
When I devided it into three smaller pathes I made the mistake.
Now the qestion:
I my original intent »@funindex \inStaffSegno« better than the »@cindex
\inStaffSegno« I mentioned in my last mail?
ArnoldTheresius
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Volta-enhancements-tranche-1-%28issue-6398055%29-tp34175083p34203677.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
