Hello, On 22 September 2012 08:32, <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > On 2012/09/22 04:37:42, dak wrote: >> >> On 2012/09/22 01:30:50, Graham Percival wrote: >> > LGTM >> > >> > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely >> >> > File Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely (right): >> > >> > > > > http://codereview.appspot.com/6532055/diff/1/Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely#newcode1067 >> >> > Documentation/notation/rhythms.itely:1067: \time #'(2 2 3) 7/8 >> > woah, cool! When did that happen? > > > As a PostScriptum, comment #12 of issue 2032: > > <URL:http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2032#c12> > > Note that the change itself are two lines. The rest is documentation, > convert-ly rules (and their results), cleanup, informing > display-lily-music about the syntax change, trivial infrastructure. > Apart from the decision to make this change (and the rather thorough > convert-ly rules, apparently successful enough for nobody to ever take > notice), all Frog level work.
I've been looking at the LSR and wondered if this now makes some of the snippets redundant (or less useful - i.e no need to set a scheme-type function explicitly). I.e http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=605 qBeam = { \set beamExceptions = #'( (end . ( ((1 . 8) . (2 2 2 2)) ))) } and http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Snippet?id=523 (although the snippet says in the code itself 'which will work with >="2.15.19"." James _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
