Am 05.01.2016 um 21:22 schrieb Thomas Morley:
[...]
To illustrate. Look at the output from the following compiled in a ly-file:
true = ##t
false = ##f
#(define v1 (vector true false true))
#(define v2 #(true false true))
#(newline)
#(write-me "v1 " v1)
#(write-me "v2 " v2)
#(write-me "(vector
I just submitted a small change to the Contributors Guide using git-cl. The
patch got into codereview.appspot.com, but not into
sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/. I let git-cl create a new issue for
the patch, but it produced a bunch of error messages. Does anyone have an idea
about why?
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 5:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> The two are not intended to be kept separate regarding their
> _identifiers_. It's one of LilyPond's strong suits (and a
> modularization nightmare) that Scheme and LilyPond all access the same
> variables and values and are only separate re
Paul Morris writes:
>> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Don't like this since it will lead to people using "true" and "false" in
>> Scheme programming, making for non-portable/non-idiomatic Scheme. Also
>> #f and #t are self-quoting forms while false and true are symbols
> On Jan 5, 2016, at 12:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Don't like this since it will lead to people using "true" and "false" in
> Scheme programming, making for non-portable/non-idiomatic Scheme. Also
> #f and #t are self-quoting forms while false and true are symbols. This
> means that if you
Thomas Morley writes:
[...]
>>> Could \true and \false be implemented as parser keywords?
>>
>> Probably. It would be a lot of effort, and they would consequently
>> behave different from other fixed expressions assigned to identifiers
>> (being unavailable in Scheme being one of the effects).
https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/diff/1/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode326
scm/define-markup-commands.scm:326: @code{angularity], @code{height} and
@code{ori
2016-01-05 21:05 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup :
> Simon Albrecht writes:
>
>> On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Paul Morris writes:
>>>
Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use
scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and
no
Simon Albrecht writes:
> On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Paul Morris writes:
>>
>>> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use
>>> scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and
>>> no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simp
On 05.01.2016 18:45, David Kastrup wrote:
Paul Morris writes:
Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use
scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and
no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things
for users.
As another smal
Paul Morris writes:
> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use
> scheme syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and
> no longer needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things
> for users.
>
> As another small step along these lines, would it
2016-01-05 17:48 GMT+01:00 Paul Morris :
> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme
> syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer
> needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for users.
>
> As another small step along th
Am 05.01.2016 um 18:06 schrieb Abraham Lee:
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Paul Morris wrote:
Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme
syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer
needing # for numbers). This has really simplified thin
On Tuesday, January 5, 2016, Paul Morris wrote:
> Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme
> syntax in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer
> needing # for numbers). This has really simplified things for users.
>
> As another small step a
Thanks to David Kastrup’s work there’s now much less need to use scheme syntax
in overrides etc. (e.g. the dot syntax instead of #' and no longer needing #
for numbers). This has really simplified things for users.
As another small step along these lines, would it make sense to free booleans
f
Reviewers: ,
Message:
Please review
Description:
Introduce new markup-command draw-squiggle-line.
Change regtest /input/regression/markup-line-styles.ly accordingly
Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/281210043/
Affected files (+140, -3 lines):
M input/regression/markup-lin
16 matches
Mail list logo