Issue 3830: Document \offset command (issue 319150043 by david.nales...@gmail.com)

[david . nalesnik]

Reviewers: ,

Message:
Please review.  Thanks!

Description:
Issue 3830:  Document \offset command

Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/319150043/

Affected files (+142, -0 lines):
  M Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Structuring website page

[Urs Liska]

Hi,

I'm drafting a new section on our GSoC page goving more information for 
achieving a mutually satisfying project.

I'd add that to the bottom of the page, after the project ideas. However, the 
page isn't properly structured, and while it's acceptable in the current 
incarnation it becomes unwieldy with my addition.

What would be the best way to add some hierarchy to the page? The most natural 
way would be to wrap the project ideas in an itemize environment but this would 
too much limit the formatting options fofceach project,  I'd say.

Any suggestions?
Urs
-- 
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:33 AM, David Nalesnik
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
>> David Nalesnik  writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James  wrote:
 Hello,

 David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a
 separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.

 Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't 
 have
 time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.

>>>
>>> I didn't forget.  I didn't think it was necessary:
>>>
>>> The snippet I recently corrected
>>> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in
>>> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new.  So makelsr
>>> hadn't been run.
>>
>> That does not even make sense.  The whole purpose of the makelsr
>> procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from
>> Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built.
>
> What I don't understand is how the merge of the original commit should
> have succeeded when there was no checkin of the results of a makelsr
> on the using-marklines-... snippet.
>

Well, I see that the original commit includes no documentation
reference to the new snippet, so I suppose I can answer my question.

DN

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Kastrup  wrote:
> David Nalesnik  writes:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James  wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a
>>> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.
>>>
>>> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have
>>> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't forget.  I didn't think it was necessary:
>>
>> The snippet I recently corrected
>> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in
>> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new.  So makelsr
>> hadn't been run.
>
> That does not even make sense.  The whole purpose of the makelsr
> procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from
> Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built.

What I don't understand is how the merge of the original commit should
have succeeded when there was no checkin of the results of a makelsr
on the using-marklines-... snippet.

>
>> - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge
>> to fail as well.
>>
>> I simply don't understand.
>
> I'll take a look at what's left to do.
>

I appreciate this.

Thanks,
DN

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[David Kastrup]

David Nalesnik  writes:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a
>> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.
>>
>> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have
>> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.
>>
>
> I didn't forget.  I didn't think it was necessary:
>
> The snippet I recently corrected
> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in
> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new.  So makelsr
> hadn't been run.

That does not even make sense.  The whole purpose of the makelsr
procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from
Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built.

> - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge
> to fail as well.
>
> I simply don't understand.

I'll take a look at what's left to do.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:59 AM, David Nalesnik
 wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James  wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a
>> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.
>>
>> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have
>> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.
>>
>
> I didn't forget.  I didn't think it was necessary:
>
> The snippet I recently corrected
> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in
> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new.  So makelsr
> hadn't been run.
> - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge
> to fail as well.

Because make doc would fail.

>
> I simply don't understand.
>
> David

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[David Nalesnik]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a
> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.
>
> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have
> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.
>

I didn't forget.  I didn't think it was necessary:

The snippet I recently corrected
(https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in
Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new.  So makelsr
hadn't been run.
- Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge
to fail as well.

I simply don't understand.

David

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Can someone run makelsr on staging please?

[James]

Hello,

David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push 
a separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails.


Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't 
have time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours.


Thanks.

James


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: C++ question:

[David Kastrup]

Knut Petersen  writes:

>>   // A markup property whiteout-markup-wzd is implemented.
>>   // The following definition is used for that property:
>>   // \markup { \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) {
>>   //   \filled-box #'(0.0 . 1.0) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.0 } }
>>   SCM properties = Font_interface::text_font_alist_chain (me);
>>   SCM ws_zd_mod = Text_interface::interpret_markup (
>>  me->layout ()->self_scm (),
>>  properties,
>>  me->get_property ("whiteout-markup-wzd"));
>>   Stencil wsa = *unsmob (ws_zd_mod);
>>
>
>>   // The following three lines should give an equivalent definition:
>>   Box wb (Interval (0.0, 1.0), Interval (-0.5, 0.5));
>>   Stencil wsb (Lookup::round_filled_box (wb, 0));
>>   wsb.set_empty(false); 
>
> The difference between Stencil wsa and wsb is that \markup { \withdimensions 
> #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) ...}
> not only sets the dimensions :
>
> (define-markup-command (with-dimensions layout props x y arg)
>   (number-pair? number-pair? markup?)
>   #:category other
>   "
> @cindex setting extent of text objects
>
> Set the dimensions of @var{arg} to @var{x} and@tie{}@var{y}."
>   (let* ((expr (ly:stencil-expr (interpret-markup layout props arg
> (ly:stencil-add
>  (make-transparent-box-stencil x y)
>  (ly:make-stencil
>   `(delay-stencil-evaluation ,(delay expr))
>   x y

I think that is half of a red herring: apparently the delayed stencil
evaluation is only used in order to sneak the stencil outline past the
outline tracing code in lily/stencil-integral.cc.  And that apparently
causes the dimensions to be totally ignored, so a transparent box is
pasted on top.

What a steaming heap of something.  So your code would likely have
worked in LilyPond 2.16.  I think it would make sense to create a new
type of stencil expression explicitly intended to bypass outlining.

Probably by just containing _two_ stencils: one for typesetting, one for
outlining.  That would make for a much more transparent manner of
programming things like that.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: C++ question:

[Knut Petersen]

  // A markup property whiteout-markup-wzd is implemented.
  // The following definition is used for that property:
  // \markup { \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) {
  //   \filled-box #'(0.0 . 1.0) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.0 } }
  SCM properties = Font_interface::text_font_alist_chain (me);
  SCM ws_zd_mod = Text_interface::interpret_markup (
 me->layout ()->self_scm (),
 properties,
 me->get_property ("whiteout-markup-wzd"));
  Stencil wsa = *unsmob (ws_zd_mod);




  // The following three lines should give an equivalent definition:
  Box wb (Interval (0.0, 1.0), Interval (-0.5, 0.5));
  Stencil wsb (Lookup::round_filled_box (wb, 0));
  wsb.set_empty(false); 


The difference between Stencil wsa and wsb is that \markup { \withdimensions 
#'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) ...}
not only sets the dimensions :

(define-markup-command (with-dimensions layout props x y arg)
  (number-pair? number-pair? markup?)
  #:category other
  "
@cindex setting extent of text objects

Set the dimensions of @var{arg} to @var{x} and@tie{}@var{y}."
  (let* ((expr (ly:stencil-expr (interpret-markup layout props arg
(ly:stencil-add
 (make-transparent-box-stencil x y)
 (ly:make-stencil
  `(delay-stencil-evaluation ,(delay expr))
  x y

Knut

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel