penalty -> permission patch

This patch has 2 purposes, but they intersect in paper-column-engraver.cc so I thought it was easier to send it as one patch. First of all, instead of penalty, breakable and page-penalty, we now have: break-penalty, break-permission page-break-penalty, page-break-permission page-turn-penalty, pag

bug emails

When we set up the bug tracker, could each bug have a "submitter's email" field, which is only viewable by admins? We should keep track of who submitted each bug so that they can be notified when it's fixed, but we don't want those addresses spammed. Cheers, - Graham __

Re: implementation plan for music streams

Erik Sandberg schreef: If there's a rule that LY_DEFINEs should be in their own files, then there are some inconsistencies: Sure. All the more reason to fix the inconsistencies. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Mus

Re: implementation plan for music streams

On Wednesday 03 May 2006 11:07, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Erik Sandberg schreef: > > LY_DEFINE (ly_make_listener, "ly:make-listener", > > scm-listener-scheme.cc > >>> > > > > sorry, I don't do stuff I don't understand. I have renamed the class and > > placed it in a file listener-sche

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

On 5/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Johannes Schindelin wrote: > No. A perfect match would be 1. Which means that file should _not_ be > flagged. well whatever. I think it is wise to do a division, if only to get a scale-free measure. I'll think about it a bit more, but w

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

Johannes Schindelin wrote: Hi, On Thu, 4 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: On 5/4/06, David Feuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hm hm... Dividing by the area of the union is bad. Maybe divide by the area of the old ones? Wait a sec I'm not sure dividing by the area of the union is really bad.

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

Hi, On Thu, 4 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: > On 5/4/06, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, 3 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: > > > > If we're looking to measure small changes, area of union minus area of > > > intersection, divided by the area of the union, woul

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

Hi, On Thu, 4 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: > On 5/4/06, David Feuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hm hm... Dividing by the area of the union is bad. Maybe divide by > > the area of the old ones? > > Wait a sec I'm not sure dividing by the area of the union is > really bad. Getting a v

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

On 5/4/06, David Feuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hm hm... Dividing by the area of the union is bad. Maybe divide by the area of the old ones? Wait a sec I'm not sure dividing by the area of the union is really bad. Getting a value near 1 somewhere should be plenty to flag the file. Da

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

On 5/4/06, Johannes Schindelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, On Wed, 3 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: > If we're looking to measure small changes, area of union minus area of > intersection, divided by the area of the union, would probably be > good. If a really nasty bug creeps in, which mak

Re: naming a data type

On Thu, 4 May 2006 21:13, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Joe Neeman schreef: > Why an enum? Because C++ has damaged my brain and I'm used to thinking of discrete types as enums/integers. > Isn't an SCM symbol ( 'forbid vs. 'force) more appropriate? Yes it is, thanks. ___

Re: naming a data type

Joe Neeman schreef: I would like to add a forbid/force/default datatype to lilypond. In C++, it would be represented by enum { FORBID = -1, DEFAULT = 0, FORCE = 1 } and in scheme it would be (define-public FORBID -1) (define-public DEFAULT 0) (define-public FORCE 1) wi

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

Hi, On Wed, 3 May 2006, David Feuer wrote: > On 5/2/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There are various ways of comparing numbers. The point is that you need > > to know which pairs of numbers/rectangles/etc. to compare. For that, you > > need to get the elements in a canon

naming a data type

I would like to add a forbid/force/default datatype to lilypond. In C++, it would be represented by enum { FORBID = -1, DEFAULT = 0, FORCE = 1 } and in scheme it would be (define-public FORBID -1) (define-public DEFAULT 0) (define-public FORCE 1) with the usual ly_scm2XX

Re: Spacing patch

Joe Neeman schreef: On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:04, Joe Neeman wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 10:04, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: If you have checked that the regtest document looks ok, please apply the spacing patch too. I have a couple regressions that may be caused by my spacing patch (or maybe by some of

Re: Backend and non-backend (was Re: Stencil bounding box)

David Feuer schreef: On 5/2/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There are various ways of comparing numbers. The point is that you need to know which pairs of numbers/rectangles/etc. to compare. For that, you need to get the elements in a canonical order, and that *must* be done w

Re: Transformation experiments

On 5/4/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think it's better to explicitly ask for everything, ie.   #'rotation = #'(45 0 -1)(where the last 2 numbers are 1,-1 style.)I agree. I'll modify the patch.Erlend ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lil

Re: Transformation experiments

Erlend Aasland schreef: On 5/3/06, *Erlend Aasland* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Currently the implementation rotates a stencil around it's center, but this isn't alway desired (I think). It would perhaps make more sense to rotate hairpins around the origin

Re: Transformation experiments

On 5/3/06, Erlend Aasland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Currently the implementation rotates a stencil around it's center, but this isn't alway desired (I think). It would perhaps make more sense to rotate hairpins around the origin... I'm thinking of a good way to make this tunable... Hmm... What wou

Re: Transformation experiments

Erlend Aasland wrote: On 5/4/06, *David Feuer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: On 5/3/06, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: What is the purpose of this transformation mechanism? Well, rotated hairpins and text on glissa