Joe Neeman writes:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 01:03 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>> > IIUC, our policy is that *every* patch that is applied should result
>> > in a buildable LilyPond. If not, it's a bad patch.
>>
>> I don't consider this policy prudent in the particular s
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 01:03 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
> > IIUC, our policy is that *every* patch that is applied should result
> > in a buildable LilyPond. If not, it's a bad patch.
>
> I don't consider this policy prudent in the particular situation "API
> change imple
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Han-Wen already posted "LGTM", and the patches include patches to the
>> documentation of the changed macros.
>>
>> I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
>
> Nicolas wrote most of the S
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 7:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Han-Wen already posted "LGTM", and the patches include patches to the
> documentation of the changed macros.
>
> I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
Nicolas wrote most of the Scheme code, and he has my full confi
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:55:59PM +, Ian Hulin wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 03:19:00PM +, Ian Hulin wrote:
>> I've revamped the "help us" page (should be visible on kainhofer
>> tomorrow), and added a bit of general info to the CG about doc
>> source files, ou
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 11/23/09 2:05 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
>> Nicolas Sceaux writes:
>>
>>> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 01:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>>
The specification of category and properties makes the *-builtin-*
variants diverge syntactically from the user specified marku
Graham Percival wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 03:19:00PM +, Ian Hulin wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
I've made a first draft of the "help us" page:
http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/web/help-us.html
"To get the source code, see Starting with git."
I've got problems with this her
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
>>
>> Wow.
>> I've [fortunately] never witnessed such mindless negative energy on
>> a mailing list to which I've been subscribed.
>
> Guys, cool down. I think everyone of you is interested to improve
>
>> I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
>
> Wow.
> I've [fortunately] never witnessed such mindless negative energy on
> a mailing list to which I've been subscribed.
Guys, cool down. I think everyone of you is interested to improve
lilypond, perhaps it helps if all
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 19:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
> lilypond a.ly b.ly
>
> we want to reuse the built-in definitions, without changes effected
> in a.ly lea
2009/11/23 Reinhold Kainhofer :
> As the author of the harp pedals code, I'm fine with that change (provided the
> regtest still works, which I haven't checked).
The regtests are fine here, so I've pushed to master.
Regards,
Neil
___
lilypond-devel m
2009/11/23 David Kastrup :
> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>
>> Am Montag, 23. November 2009 01:03:10 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> ---
>>> scm/define-markup-commands.scm | 3 +--
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> This patch series makes the syntax of builtin markup
>>> co
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> And this year's "Good Will Generator" Award goes to…
>
>> I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
>
> Wow.
> I've [fortunately] never witnessed such mindless negative energy on a
> mailing list to which I've been subscribed.
It was in direct re
On 11/23/09 2:05 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Nicolas Sceaux writes:
>
>> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 01:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>
>>> The specification of category and properties makes the *-builtin-*
>>> variants diverge syntactically from the user specified markup. Moving
>>> those specifica
On 11/23/09 2:41 PM, "Valentin Villenave" wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> The way we indicate a variable name in the documentation is not with CAPS or
>> with 'single quotes' but with @var{macro}.
>
> That (unfortunately) doesn't seem to apply in music-funct
And this year's "Good Will Generator" Award goes to…
I don't think that I can contribute much more to your amusement.
Wow.
I've [fortunately] never witnessed such mindless negative energy on a
mailing list to which I've been subscribed.
___
lilyp
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
>>> I think somewhere you missed a change from
>>> define-builtin-markup-list-command to define-markup-list-command.
>>
>> I did not change any define-builtin-markup-list-command to
>> define-markup-list-command in this patch series.
>
> This is precisely what I meant. If
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> The way we indicate a variable name in the documentation is not with CAPS or
> with 'single quotes' but with @var{macro}.
That (unfortunately) doesn't seem to apply in music-functions.scm:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=lilypond.git;a
Le 23 nov. 2009 à 19:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
lilypond a.ly b.ly
we want to reuse the built-in definitions, without changes effected
in a.ly leaking into the processing of b.ly
>>
Le 23 nov. 2009 à 22:05, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
> There is no clue just _how_ one should answer the questions or what they
> mean.
Oh please... If you had read the git-cl README, which gives the complete
sequence, instead of writing (one more time) a lengthy useless mail,
then the patch would
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 23 nov. 2009 à 01:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> The specification of category and properties makes the *-builtin-*
>> variants diverge syntactically from the user specified markup. Moving
>> those specifications into keyword arguments makes the builtin defining
>>
Le 23 nov. 2009 à 01:03, David Kastrup a écrit :
> The specification of category and properties makes the *-builtin-*
> variants diverge syntactically from the user specified markup. Moving
> those specifications into keyword arguments makes the builtin defining
> macros upwards compatible with t
Le 23 nov. 2009 à 03:23, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
>
> I think that what Graham meant was you should use @var{props} instead of
> `props'.
Yes, I've finally understood what Graham meant, but after I've sent that
stupid message :)
___
lilypond-devel ma
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 18:03 +, Trevor Daniels a écrit :
> Having just installed ubuntu, a new git repo and compiled Lily and
> the docs for the first time I see that all the entries in out-www
> appear as unstaged changes in git.
>
> Should not out-www be included in .gitignore or am I
Having just installed ubuntu, a new git repo and compiled Lily and
the docs for the first time I see that all the entries in out-www
appear as unstaged changes in git.
Should not out-www be included in .gitignore or am I doing something
wrong here?
Trevor
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>> lilypond a.ly b.ly
>>>
>>> we want to reuse the built-in definitions, without changes effected
>>> in a.ly leaking into the processing of b.ly
>>
>> Wouldn't just putting the built-in definition at public sco
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> lilypond a.ly b.ly
>>
>> we want to reuse the built-in definitions, without changes effected in
>> a.ly leaking into the processing of b.ly
>
> Wouldn't just putting the built-in definition at public scope accomplish
> that?
I don't know.
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> in the course of seeing how much code can be shared between
>> define-builtin-markup-command and define-markup-command, the main
>> difference appears to be scope.
>>
>> That's not much of a problem
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:19 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/11/22 Graham Percival :
>> Also, two very-near collisions between rests and
>> beams are fixed. There's a bunch of text with a "cells" numbers
>> that's changed. I don't know what that's about.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean with
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:02 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I have no idea what I am doing here. In particular not with the
\override, and the set-object-property!. Can somebody explain to me
just what data structures I happen to manipulate, and how a user i
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:56 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> in the course of seeing how much code can be shared between
> define-builtin-markup-command and define-markup-command, the main
> difference appears to be scope.
>
> That's not much of a problem: just call the defining command, the
Hi,
in the course of seeing how much code can be shared between
define-builtin-markup-command and define-markup-command, the main
difference appears to be scope.
That's not much of a problem: just call the defining command, then
(export ...) the result. Except that lilypond jiggles with symbols
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:02 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> I have no idea what I am doing here. In particular not with the
>>> \override, and the set-object-property!. Can somebody explain to me
>>> just what data structures I happen to manipulate, and how a user is
>>> actually _supposed_ to be
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Montag, 23. November 2009 01:03:10 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> ---
>> scm/define-markup-commands.scm |3 +--
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> This patch series makes the syntax of builtin markup
>> commands upwards compatible with the u
Ian Hulin writes:
> Valentin Villenave wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM, David Pounder wrote:
>>> Very small point, but the phrase "Frogs are simple LilyPond users" would be
>>> better expressed as "Frogs are simply LilyPond users" as the former has an
>>> undesired implication, at le
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Sonntag, 22. November 2009 07:49:04 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>> > And if you have the source tree in a git repository, then it's trivial to
>> > make branches, and checkout the appropriate branch. That way you don't
>> > have to worry about
Valentin Villenave wrote:
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:05 PM, David Pounder wrote:
Very small point, but the phrase "Frogs are simple LilyPond users" would be better
expressed as "Frogs are simply LilyPond users" as the former has an undesired
implication, at least in UK English.
Hehe. It neve
Am Montag, 23. November 2009 07:19:58 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> > this is exactly why do not have a central ChangeLog file.
>
> Sure, that's sane. I am just saying that a central place to register
> properties has the same problem.
No, with a ChangeLog, changes are alw
Am Montag, 23. November 2009 01:03:11 schrieb David Kastrup:
> The already outcommented problematic \harp-pedal-verbose markup is
> removed completely. Inlining make-harp-pedal makes it possible to use
> the property binding mechanism of define-builtin-markup-command in
> order to minimize inconsi
Am Montag, 23. November 2009 01:03:10 schrieb David Kastrup:
> ---
> scm/define-markup-commands.scm |3 +--
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> This patch series makes the syntax of builtin markup
> commands upwards compatible with the user level ones.
Wrong description fo
Am Sonntag, 22. November 2009 07:49:04 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
> > And if you have the source tree in a git repository, then it's trivial to
> > make branches, and checkout the appropriate branch. That way you don't
> > have to worry about overwrites (and if you do have ove
41 matches
Mail list logo
