Raphael Mankin writes:
> As a more general response to this thread, I feel that the reference
> manual needs to have more cross references. I frequently get a bit
> lost trying to find a suitable construct, or discovering what a
> construct means.
>
> This thread has already shown that 1.2.2,
As a more general response to this thread, I feel that the reference
manual needs to have more cross references. I frequently get a bit lost
trying to find a suitable construct, or discovering what a construct means.
This thread has already shown that 1.2.2, 1.3.* and 1.5.* need to
Hi Raphael,
Am 12.01.24 um 13:32 schrieb Raphael Mankin:
I agree that 0 as a denominator would seem to indicate an infinite
duration, and allow the rest of your argument. However <> still seems
unintuitive.
I agree that <> isn't obvious. But in a complex language like LilyPond,
there's
On 2024-01-12 15:58, Knute Snortum
wrote:
At
least section 1.2.2 of the reference manual ought to be updated
to
include <> in the discussion of invisible rests.
Can you share how you would want that
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 6:21 AM Raphael Mankin wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2024 10:35, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> >
> >> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a
> programmer
> >> for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it
Raphael Mankin writes:
> On 10/01/2024 10:35, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote:
>>
>>> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a
>>> programmer
>>> for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If s0 is more
>>>
On 10/01/2024 10:35, msk...@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote:
That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a programmer
for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If s0 is more
intuitive then that should be considered for
Jean Abou Samra writes:
> Raphael:
>> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a
>> programmer for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If
>> s0 is more intuitive then that should be considered for future inclusion.
>
> s1*0 works and is more or less
Raphael:
> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a
> programmer for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If
> s0 is more intuitive then that should be considered for future inclusion.
s1*0 works and is more or less equivalent to <> .
John:
> The
On Wed, 10 Jan 2024, Raphael Mankin wrote:
> That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a programmer
> for over 50 years. Using <> works, but it is unintuitive. If s0 is more
> intuitive then that should be considered for future inclusion.
It's intuitive to me that s0 means
On 09/01/2024 18:35, Paul Scott wrote:
On 1/9/24 11:29 AM, John Asmuth wrote:
Hi lilypond,
I have two users for a s0 (except it tells me 0 is not a duration).
<> does what I believe you want: <>_\<
HTH,
Paul
That strikes me as being a programmer's response, and I speak as a
Yes, thank you!
On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 1:36 PM Paul Scott wrote:
> On 1/9/24 11:29 AM, John Asmuth wrote:
> > Hi lilypond,
> >
> > I have two users for a s0 (except it tells me 0 is not a duration).
>
> <> does what I believe you want: <>_\<
>
> HTH,
>
> Paul
>
>
> >
> > First, I have a
On 1/9/24 11:29 AM, John Asmuth wrote:
Hi lilypond,
I have two users for a s0 (except it tells me 0 is not a duration).
<> does what I believe you want: <>_\<
HTH,
Paul
First, I have a "\repeat unfold N { ... }" and I want to surround the
whole thing with a crescendo.
I could
Hi lilypond,
I have two users for a s0 (except it tells me 0 is not a duration).
First, I have a "\repeat unfold N { ... }" and I want to surround the
whole thing with a crescendo.
I could unpack the first and last item in the repeat, but I feel
lily lilypond has some way to do an equivalent
14 matches
Mail list logo
