Exerpt from Chords:
---
maj
The major 7th chord. This modifier adds a raised 7th step. The
7 following maj is optional. Do NOT use this modifier to create a
major triad.
---
In other words,
\chordmode{ c:maj c:maj7 }
produce the same chord, although
\chordmode{ c:m c:m7 }
don't.
Why? IMO
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 13:31 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> Thanks for your comments, Joe.
>
> I'm struggling a bit with sscanf () though. I tried your suggestion of
>
> if (sscanf (s.c_str (), "%d") != s.size ()) ...
>
> but it fails with a segfault; when compiling, I get two warnings: that
> the
2008/5/17 Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Uh, there is already a duration parsing function in
>> scm/define-markup-commands.scm. Why not just make it public and
>> rename it? It's a bit too permissive maybe, but still...
>
> This was my original suggestion to Valentin; I'm quite happy to go
>
2008/5/17 Nicolas Sceaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Uh, there is already a duration parsing function in
> scm/define-markup-commands.scm. Why not just make it public and
> rename it? It's a bit too permissive maybe, but still...
This was my original suggestion to Valentin; I'm quite happy to go
along
Thanks for your comments, Joe.
I'm struggling a bit with sscanf () though. I tried your suggestion of
if (sscanf (s.c_str (), "%d") != s.size ()) ...
but it fails with a segfault; when compiling, I get two warnings: that
there's not enough arguments to sscanf (), and about type conversion
(shoul
2008/5/17 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for the patch. The thing that bothers me is that I don't see why the
> lack of an X-extent should cause such a formatting disaster (and so it could
> be that the patch is simply covering up the real bug). Do you understand
> what's going on?
Nope
2008/5/5 Reinhold Kainhofer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am Sonntag, 4. Mai 2008 schrieb Trevor Daniels:
> > Hi Reinhold
> >
> > These fix most of the problems:
> >
> > \override InstrumentSwitch #'outside-staff-priority = 100
> > \override InstrumentSwitch #'self-alignment-X = #LEFT
> >
> > but
2008/5/9 Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/8 Risto Vääräniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I played around a bit with your example and found out that LP behaves
> > very inconsistently. If I just comment out the \break (and move fis &
> > g to the next line) I get different results than whe
2008/5/17 Trevor Daniels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> @qq{} is fine when you're talking about the @emph{name}
> of the mode, as in
>
> "A @code{\markup} block is used to typeset text with an extensible
> specific syntax called @qq{markup mode}."
Yes, this was what I had in mind too when I wrote this se
