It seems that some changes in the way lilypond-books output is stored have
broken certain build rules, particularly ones that clean stuff. For example,
$ make check
$ make test-clean
$ time make check
real0m31.410s
user0m25.598s
sys0m4.084s
$ make test-clean && rm -fr out/lybook-db
$ t
2008/4/24 Risto Vääräniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/4/23 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
>
> > The reference point is the center of the stem, and the flag attaches
> > to the right side of the stem.
Yes, I meant : the 0-point of the flag should be at the edge of the stem.
> Because the flags are not al
2008/4/23 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> The reference point is the center of the stem, and the flag attaches
> to the right side of the stem.
2008/4/24 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> If it is a rounding error, the difference should be 1 pixel at most;
> on a 600 dpi printer, that's practically invisible. There may
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:29:54 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly.
> > If it is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully
> > everything is intere
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:40:58 +0200
> David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Having to specify a particular snippet makes sure that this snippet
>> (and thus the construct) indeed appears in the docs, and that its
>> absence will be noticed when
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:40:58 +0200
David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having to specify a particular snippet makes sure that this snippet
> (and thus the construct) indeed appears in the docs, and that its
> absence will be noticed when compiling the documentation.
You misunderstand. @li
2008/4/24 Risto Vääräniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/4/23 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
>
>
> > looks like a rounding error. Do you see the same if you use extreme
> > magnification?
>
> If I use \fontsize #5 and print it I can see the discontinuity in the
> stem very clearly and even the gap between
Graham Percival wrote
Does anybody really want to keep @lsr{} (in addition to
@lsrdir{})? It isn't used in any finished GDP sections, and I'm
90% certain it isn't worth keeping.
@lsrdir{Pitches, Pitches} points to the whole collection of pitch
snippets.
@lsr{pitches, adding-ambitus-per-voice.l
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly. If it
>> is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully everything
>> is interesting). But "it is good for you to
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:39:42 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > > Yes, but that way the author's name won't be displayed at all
> > > (even the comment will be stripped out).
> >
> > Umm, yes. That is exactly the point.
2008/4/24 David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The idea of a cross reference is to get me where I want directly. If it
> is in the vicinity of interesting material, nice (hopefully everything
> is interesting). But "it is good for you to wade through unrelated,
> closely situated material" i
Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> b) we *want* users to skim through the snippet list. LilyPond can
> do things that most people never think of -- even I get surprised
> from time to time when I see neat snippets. (IIRC the last time
> was about a month ago)
Sorry, this argument doe
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Evidently not, sorry. :(
Too bad there isn't any other "grumpy Graham" to yell at you :-)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, but that way the author's name won't be displayed at all (even
> > the comment will be stripped out).
>
> Umm, yes. That is exactly the point.
In this case, why on earth would you like the authors to sign their
snippets *at all*?
> We
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:24:12 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Compromise: could makelsr.py ignore
> > % GDB: ...
> > lines? That way we could tag snippet authorship with
> > % GDB: Thanks to Foo Bar for this snippet
>
It looks like you haven't removed buildscripts/langdefs.pyc. Haven't
you read my previous message on this list asking everybody to do this?
Cheers,
John
Graham Percival wrote:
> /home/lilypond/lilypond/stepmake/stepmake/podir-targets.make:14:
> warning: ignoring old commands for target `po-updat
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:13:03 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
> rather than a bunch of snippets I won't take the time to read.
Addendum: pretend that you're a lazy user, interested in
accidentals. Look at
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> c) if a snippet is extremely relevant, we'll include it directly
> with @lilypondfile.
Yes indeed. OK, I'm running out of counter-arguments :)
Cheers,
Valentin
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypon
Graham Percival schrieb:
No, @lsr{} is completely distinct from @lilypondfile. @lsr{}
would create a link to a specific snippet; it would be used in the
@seealso
Snippets: @lsr{}
Yes, I know, but the functionality is quite the same in my opinion: to
give access to a specific snippet releva
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Compromise: could makelsr.py ignore
> % GDB: ...
> lines? That way we could tag snippet authorship with
> % GDB: Thanks to Foo Bar for this snippet
> without cluttering up the official docs.
Yes, but that way the author's name won't be display
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:13:03 +0200
"Valentin Villenave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days. :)
>
> As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
> rather than a bunch
Graham Percival wrote:
> We could then rename @lsrdir{} to @rlsr{} and use the same format
> as all the other @rfoo{} macros. That would simply the doc
> source.
>
> Unless I hear voiciferous complaints before Monday, I'll remove
> @lsr{}.
Very good. We'll be able to replace @lsr with @rlsr as
2008/4/24 Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Counter-arguments welcome for the next three or four days. :)
No, really? :)
As a lazy user, I always prefer being pointed to a specific snippet
rather than a bunch of snippets I won't take the time to read. There's
no way @lsr can't be more use
We like to indicate the authors of snippets in LSR (or at least,
some people do, and I'm not prepared to argue against this point),
but I don't want individual names in the docs. (this would
quickly get ridiculous)
Compromise: could makelsr.py ignore
% GDB: ...
lines? That way we could tag snipp
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:38:50 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
> > We could then rename @lsrdir{} to @rlsr{} and use the same format
> > as all the other @rfoo{} macros. That would simply the doc
> > source.
> >
> > Unless I hear voiciferous complaints befo
Evidently not, sorry. :(
- Graham
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 09:26:45 +0200
John Mandereau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like you haven't removed buildscripts/langdefs.pyc. Haven't
> you read my previous message on this list asking everybody to do this?
>
> Cheers,
> John
>
2008/4/23 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> looks like a rounding error. Do you see the same if you use extreme
> magnification?
If I use \fontsize #5 and print it I can see the discontinuity in the
stem very clearly and even the gap between the stem and the flag. :-)
As I tried to say in the previous ema
27 matches
Mail list logo
