On 2020/02/07 12:34:38, dak wrote:
But it has
> evaded me to find a way of expressing "end cadenza and bar". The best
I could
> do so far could be expressed as
>
> \cadenzaOffAfter =
> #(define-music-function (last-note) (ly:music?)
>#{ \partial #(ly:music-duration 1 0 (ly:moment-main
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 4:43 PM wrote:
> On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote:
> > On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote:
> > More code means more maintenance liability, so unless
> > it either solves a problem, or it simplifies the existing system, it
> would be a
> > net negative.
>
> You're
On 2020/02/07 15:43:30, Dan Eble wrote:
> On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote:
> > On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote:
> > More code means more maintenance liability, so unless
> > it either solves a problem, or it simplifies the existing system, it
would be
> a
> > net negative.
>
>
On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote:
> On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote:
> More code means more maintenance liability, so unless
> it either solves a problem, or it simplifies the existing system, it
would be a
> net negative.
You're preaching to the choir.
> I would really like the
On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 1:34 PM wrote:
> On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote:
>
> > David mentions \cadenzaOff in the issue tracker. I think you could fix
> the
> > behavior inside the Timing_engraver without requiring a new construct
> (although,
> > if we did this, we'd probably upset bar
On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote:
> David mentions \cadenzaOff in the issue tracker. I think you could fix
the
> behavior inside the Timing_engraver without requiring a new construct
(although,
> if we did this, we'd probably upset bar numbering across existing
scores.)
I think I tried. At
On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote:
> The reviewers are turning the first question I asked around and asking
it back
> to me. I don't know if this is useful without other stuff I've been
working on.
> That's why I've posted it for review. I thought that you (well,
mainly I
> thought that
On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote:
> The reviewers are turning the first question I asked around and asking
it back
> to me. I don't know if this is useful without other stuff I've been
working on.
> That's why I've posted it for review. I thought that you (well,
mainly I
> thought that
Reviewers: thomasmorley651, hanwenn,
Message:
The reviewers are turning the first question I asked around and asking
it back to me. I don't know if this is useful without other stuff I've
been working on. That's why I've posted it for review. I thought that
you (well, mainly I thought that
I haven't looked in detail at the code, but I couldn't work out why you
want to add this, and that is probably the most important piece of
information to decide how to best go about implementing it.
>From a cursory reading, you want to set a context property at a specific
point in the engraver
Hi Dan,
I've difficulties to understand what this is about. And my lack of
C++-knowledge hinders my to deduce it.
Could you give a ly-code-example which is not possible with current
possibilities or where using current possibilities leads to some
uglyness?
11 matches
Mail list logo
