Wiz Aus wrote:
>> From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Wiz Aus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lily-devel
>> Subject: Re: Illegal C++
>> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:17:14 +0200
>>
>> You can build it under cygwin, this is possible but something of a
>> hassle. The result is slower than the mingw
On 10/13/05, Wiz Aus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Now, do I really need to download every single one of those packagesindividually? And are they all available in the right versions for mingw?Perhaps you could try
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ? You seem to get off topic...Erlend_
From: Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wiz Aus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, lily-devel
Subject: Re: Illegal C++
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:17:14 +0200
You can build it under cygwin, this is possible but something of a hassle.
The result is slower than the mingw build. It's also possible to x-com
What/where are the building instructions for Win32? I understand it
uses MINGW32, but the source I downloaded certainly doesn't have
everything required to build, say, the lilypond-windows executable that
comes with the install.
We cross-compile the .exe under Linux. Theoretically, you could
On 12/10/05, Heikki Johannes Junes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:42:37 +0200 Jan Buchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Seems like 21.4 is the current stable release, and I have not used CVS Emacs.Therefore, patches for LilyPond's Emacs files are welcome. The type of changes
needed be
Heikki Johannes Junes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:42:37 +0200 Jan Buchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> we develop Free Software for blind and we have several blind users
>> who use Emacs Lilypond mode.
>
> This is a good thing.
>
>> Now we have problem wit
> "HJJ" == Heikki Johannes Junes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HJJ> On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 21:42:37 +0200 Jan Buchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> we develop Free Software for blind and we have several blind
>> users who use Emacs Lilypond mode.
HJJ> This is
Wiz Aus wrote:
Um...no...that's how it registers all the different engravers/performers.
Without the change I made, it gives a Key_performer not found error
(or something like).
FWIW, the MSVC RTTI returns "class Key_performer" for the class name.
Yes, you're right. I noticed this later.
What
Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> I'm using mftrace version 1.1.12, and potrace version 1.7. Autotrace
>> version 0.31.1 is also installed, but mftrace says it uses potrace if
>> both are there. mftrace also uses t1asm, which is version 1.32.
>
> Upgrad
