Re: Easy to tackle bug/feature
On Jul 18, 2022, at 01:46, Paulo Matos wrote: > > I feel therefore compelled to ask if there's any other suggestion about > what I could look at. I am familiar with C++/Scheme code (although most > of my Scheme is done in Racket, not Guile but that shouldn't be a > blocker). https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6304 ? — Dan
Re: Easy to tackle bug/feature
Dan Eble writes: > On Jul 18, 2022, at 01:46, Paulo Matos wrote: >> >> I feel therefore compelled to ask if there's any other suggestion about >> what I could look at. I am familiar with C++/Scheme code (although most >> of my Scheme is done in Racket, not Guile but that shouldn't be a >> blocker). > > https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6304 ? Huh - the danish IJ? I didn't know anything about this until right about now. :) Anyway, let me take a look and see if I can make sense of it. Dan, are you the right person to bother if I have any further questions? Regards, -- Paulo Matos
Re: Easy to tackle bug/feature
Le 18/07/2022 à 13:56, Dan Eble a écrit : On Jul 18, 2022, at 01:46, Paulo Matos wrote: I feel therefore compelled to ask if there's any other suggestion about what I could look at. I am familiar with C++/Scheme code (although most of my Scheme is done in Racket, not Guile but that shouldn't be a blocker). https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6304 ? Also try looking at those listed here: https://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg146825.html Best, Jean
Re: Easy to tackle bug/feature
On Jul 18, 2022, at 09:49, Paulo Matos wrote: > > Anyway, let me take a look and see if I can make sense of it. Dan, are > you the right person to bother if I have any further questions? It is best to post questions to lilypond-devel so that everyone can participate in answering and learning. — Dan
Re: \fine, pre-process-in-final-translation-timestep & co.
On Jul 10, 2022, at 12:04, Jean Abou Samra wrote:
>
> The currently recommended syntax for DS al fine
> repeats is
>
> \repeat segno 2 {
> c'1 1 1 1
> \volta 2 \fine
> c'1 1 1 1
> }
>
> This seems to work just as well, though:
>
> \repeat segno 2 {
> c'1 1 1 1
> \volta 2 \fine
> \volta 1 { c'1 1 1 1 }
> }
>
> Do you see downsides with that syntax?
Imagining myself in the position of a user looking at a black box, I would not
have much respect for a developer trying to make me believe that LilyPond needs
more information than "\volta 2 \fine" to determine that the work ends there.
I don't want to be that developer.
I won't rule it out, but it's not my first or second choice.
—
Dan
