Re: Default font for the web site

Hi Simon, No. In my experience doing typography for people, for every typeface that one person likes, another loathes it. Taste in type is very personal and very emotive – you can never win and satisfy all. Everybody now has their own expert opinion, even though typography is a very refined and

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

> >> Well, I don't know how can I be *completely* sure about it, but I >> see this issue on Evince and Okular pdf readers, as well as in >> Frescobaldi. If you have some suggestion on how to test this >> further, please let me know. > > Frescobaldi, Evince and Okular all use the Poppler library.

Re: Noteheads slightly too large

Op Tue, 9 Feb 2016 07:14:45 -0700 (MST) Gilberto Agostinho schreef: > Well, I don't know how can I be *completely* sure about it, but I see > this issue on Evince and Okular pdf readers, as well as in > Frescobaldi. If you have some suggestion on how to test this further, > please let me know. F

Re: Default font for the web site

> On Mar 2, 2016, at 6:08 PM, Simon Albrecht wrote: > > made me think that we > really should specify a default font for our web site. I think specifying a default font is probably a good idea. This raises a couple of related issues in

Broken link on GSOC page

On the LilyPond GSOC page: http://lilypond.org/google-summer-of-code.html Under "Improve default beam positioning” the link to "section 2.2 here” goes to: http://icking-music-archive.org/lists/sottisier/sottieng.pdf Which no longer exists, because as it says here: http://icking-music-archive.org

Re: Default font for the web site

Simon Albrecht writes: > I hope you don’t mind if I keep the poll public. > > On 03.03.2016 00:29, Ophir Lifshitz wrote: >> Hello, >> >> In my opinion, a "classical" look should not be used for a site >> whose purpose is documentation, but, a font that is very easy to >> read. > > Perhaps one may

Re: Default font for the web site

I hope you don’t mind if I keep the poll public. On 03.03.2016 00:29, Ophir Lifshitz wrote: Hello, In my opinion, a "classical" look should not be used for a site whose purpose is documentation, but, a font that is very easy to read. Perhaps one may argue about what kind of fonts is best to

Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

Jon Ciesla writes: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Jon Ciesla writes: >> >> > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is >> > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch >> > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to buil

Default font for the web site

made me think that we really should specify a default font for our web site. Else the browser will be left to choose, eventually presenting the user with Times New Roman, if he hasn’t made a better choice yet. Shouldn’t we avoid that? If y

Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

> On 2 Mar 2016, at 22:49, David Kastrup wrote: > > I don't have access to the C++14 standard. Make a C++ standard draft: >From https://github.com/cplusplus/draft: 1. git clone https://github.com/cplusplus/draft.git 2. cd draft/source/ 3. latexmk -pdf std Output: std.pdf

Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

Jon Ciesla writes: > On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Jon Ciesla writes: >> >> > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is >> > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch >> > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to buil

Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 3:00 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Jon Ciesla writes: > > > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is > > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch > > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt i

Re: Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

Jon Ciesla writes: > Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is > the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch > allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt if applicable. > If there are better corrections than what I've d

Source compilation errors with c++14/GCC6

Lilypond 2.19.36/7 fails to build with GCC6 using the c++14 std, which is the new default for GCC6, as present in Fedora 24+. Attached is a patch allowing Lilpond 2.19.37 to build. Please review and adopt if applicable. If there are better corrections than what I've done here, please let me know