2012/1/11 :
> On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
>>
>> There are some duplications in the docs now.
>> (LBTM?)
>
>
> "The notation manual has not been revised yet."
Ok, i misunderstood. Sorry.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
h
On 2012/01/11 11:45:19, J_lowe wrote:
I've created
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2213 so I'll work
on the NR as I did all the \footnote Doc in the first place.
I am assuming you still have to include your documentation edits in
the patch so that the docs compile?
Nope
On 2012/01/11 06:57:48, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
> There are some duplications in the docs now.
> (LBTM?)
"The notation manual has not been revised yet."
Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the
argument order
and this will, obviously, also a
On 2012/01/11 05:11:39, janek wrote:
There are some duplications in the docs now.
(LBTM?)
"The notation manual has not been revised yet."
Since I am currently doing the convert-ly rules for juggling the
argument order and this will, obviously, also affect the manual both
with respect to autoco
e1070
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1070: To annotate chorded notes, the
@code{\autoFootnote} must come
Shouldn't @code{\autoFootnote} be changed to @code{\footnote}, with a
mention of \default too?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#n
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> footnote-auto-numbering is present in the _code_. This is not just a
>> question of the doc string. There _is_ user-level documentation in
>> the notation manual (as a warning) mentioning, something like on
On Jan 10, 2012, at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> What's that? auto-numbering will only be active if
>>> footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout? Which it isn't by
>>> default? And where the
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:23 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> What's that? auto-numbering will only be active if
>> footnote-auto-numbering is set in the layout? Which it isn't by
>> default? And where there is no documentation around explaining how and
>> why you sh
at is defined.
>>
>> On the plus side, most user files will likely be using \autoFootnote.
>
> I have just looked at the definitions of the \footnote and
> \auto-footnote markups. They are a total mess in discord with their
> documentation, so it is not all th
likely be using \autoFootnote.
I have just looked at the definitions of the \footnote and
\auto-footnote markups. They are a total mess in discord with their
documentation, so it is not all that likely that users have been using
them much.
(define-markup-command (footnote layout props mkup note)
command. I have to see how that is defined.
On the plus side, most user files will likely be using \autoFootnote.
--
David Kastrup
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:28:46 +, d...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use
\default
for
> auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mar
On 2012/01/10 13:18:03, dak wrote:
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
> LGTM.
>
> From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default
for
> auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either). One
might
consider
On 2012/01/10 12:59:21, Reinhold wrote:
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default
for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
It is the same as with \mark (we don't have \autoMark either). One
might consider moving the footnote mark argument to last
LGTM.
From a lazy user's POV, I don't like that I now have to use \default for
auto-numbering (which is th typical case)...
But then, one can always define one's own music function that takes care
of that. So no objection from my side.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/Documentation/
ments are not implemented for markup functions, so no can
do. It is an obvious contender once they are. As a stopgap measure,
one might think about using ##f or something to that effect instead of
\default. autoFootnote and auto-footnote have been different before, so
I don't consider it rea
On 2012/01/09 20:42:30, J_lowe wrote:
Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote
command as well?
No.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-d
member whether I would be impeding on
Python's namespace. I would have to check.
Description:
Let \footnote do the job of \footnote, \footnoteGrob, \autoFootnote and
\autoFootnoteGrob
and
Run scripts/auxiliar/update-with-convert-ly.sh
Since most of the changes are done by convert-ly, reviewa
LGTM. Good work!
The only think I'd ask is that you change the markup syntax before
pushing the patch. I think that, if the distinction between footnote
and auto-footnote is going to be eliminated, it needs to be categorical.
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py
File python/convertrules.py (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/diff/1/python/convertrules.py#newcode3362
python/convertrules.py:3362:
From an orthogonal point of view, those variables should be either named
`matchstr
Thanks, David!
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 9 January 2012 20:49, wrote:
> Looks *very* good to me!
>
> I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
> users. Thanks for doing this!
On the shoulders of Giants eh David ;)
I can help with the doc if you like, perhaps download the diff file
from the tracker, apply
Looks *very* good to me!
I really like having only one \footnote command; it's intuitive for
users. Thanks for doing this!
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/li
Does this do anything to the
\auto-footnote
command as well?
http://codereview.appspot.com/5527058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Neil Puttock writes:
> On 8 January 2012 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> I am also replacing the flowery language "Use like @code{\\tweak}." and
>> "Use like @code{\\once}." since neither makes any sense whatsoever: you
>> don't use the first before a postevent,
>
> What's a postevent these day
On 8 January 2012 15:45, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am also replacing the flowery language "Use like @code{\\tweak}." and
> "Use like @code{\\once}." since neither makes any sense whatsoever: you
> don't use the first before a postevent,
What's a postevent these days then? If you want to tweak an
On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:45 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I assume the first is supposed to mean "use like
> an articulation" and the second "affects every grob of the given type in
> the current timestep".
>
Yup!
In the same patch, you can change the balloon docstring to the same thing, as
the footn
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>>
>> I am currently replacing the footnote user interface. The doc string
>> for autoFootnote states:
>>
>> (_i "Footnote the item after which this comes
On Jan 8, 2012, at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> I am currently replacing the footnote user interface. The doc string
> for autoFootnote states:
>
> (_i "Footnote the item after which this comes with the text in
> @var{footnote} allowing for the footnote to be
I am currently replacing the footnote user interface. The doc string
for autoFootnote states:
(_i "Footnote the item after which this comes with the text in
@var{footnote} allowing for the footnote to be automatically numbered
such that the number appears at @var{offset}. Note that
30 matches
Mail list logo
