Am 05.06.2012 08:29, schrieb Marc Hohl:
Hi all,
Am 03.06.2012 22:58, schrieb Thomas Morley:
Hi,
together with Marc Hohl I was working on Issue 1320 for a couple of
weeks.
Now we have a first working version using a new approach to design
BarLines:
Only simple BarLines are predefined e.g "|"
Hi all,
Am 03.06.2012 22:58, schrieb Thomas Morley:
Hi,
together with Marc Hohl I was working on Issue 1320 for a couple of weeks.
Now we have a first working version using a new approach to design BarLines:
Only simple BarLines are predefined e.g "|" "." ":" etc (plus some
exceptions).
Some
Hi all,
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM, David Nalesnik wrote:
> After working with \shape (which offsets 'control-points), I've been
> tinkering with the idea of generalizing offsets to LilyPond's defaults.
> I've attached a sketch of a function which attempts to do this, and I show
> it in opera
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> My recommendation: just pick something you like and run with it.
> Right now this is in the "sour spot" of bikeshedding. We should
> either have a formal discussion (which waits until GLISS), or just
> get something done by you picking arbi
Le 03/06/2012 16:28, Phil Holmes disait :
I'm trying to build GUB again. This has partly been affected by my
attempt to follow the minor build process a while ago, and getting my
git stash in an inconsistent state. However, think that's now OK, but I
get this:
If I look in the lilypond.log file,
Hi,
After working with \shape (which offsets 'control-points), I've been
tinkering with the idea of generalizing offsets to LilyPond's defaults.
(Urs Liska brought this up here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lilypond-user@gnu.org/msg71495.html.) I've
attached a sketch of a function which attempts
On 2012/06/04 16:00:14, Graham Percival wrote:
Exactly. I have no clue why (I never learned grammar), but either
of those options are how I'd expect to read it. Or maybe change
it to ", but any attempts".
That sounds like the best option grammatically, but it lends an absolute
flavor to a st
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:39:05AM -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
> Hi David (et al.),
>
> > Well, we have two separate complete sentences, and joined with a comma
> > the reader is easily confused into reading "attempts" as a verb, even
> > though admittedly it would be singular and thus not a co
On 2012/06/04 15:39:10, kieren_macmillan_sympatico.ca wrote:
Hi David (et al.),
>> should be a comma here, not a semicolon.
>
> Well, we have two separate complete sentences, and joined with a
comma
> the reader is easily confused into reading "attempts" as a verb,
even
> though admittedly
Hi David (et al.),
>> should be a comma here, not a semicolon.
>
> Well, we have two separate complete sentences, and joined with a comma
> the reader is easily confused into reading "attempts" as a verb, even
> though admittedly it would be singular and thus not a complete match to
> "the simult
Am 04.06.2012 17:13, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 05:01:44PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
Am 04.06.2012 13:21, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
How about ! then? It actually has both | and . in it, and it _is_ a
sentence ending punctuation.
I missed something; why not keep . for the thic
We'll likely take months to get the documentation connected with this
delicate issue into a state where it would empower the gentle reader to
make an educated choice himself.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/si
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 05:01:44PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
> Am 04.06.2012 13:21, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
> >>How about ! then? It actually has both | and . in it, and it _is_ a
> >>sentence ending punctuation.
I missed something; why not keep . for the thick one? as in the
current "|." ?
> "="
Am 04.06.2012 13:21, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
Uh, oh, please not a letter. I almost always use seriffed fonts, and
it looks rather strange. What slightly longer but easy to remember
symbolics?
||
Please no. Let
LGTM, pending a serious discussion of this stuff in GLISS.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itel
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6279045/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 4 juin 2012, at 15:22, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 06:58:23AM +0200, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
>> Question regarding programming errors of this ilk - if a programming error
>> shows up only in current master w/ optimizing disabled (meaning it'd never
>> show up in a rel
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 06:58:23AM +0200, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> Question regarding programming errors of this ilk - if a programming error
> shows up only in current master w/ optimizing disabled (meaning it'd never
> show up in a release where optimizing is enabled), how should we flag i
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 12:56:58PM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:15:33AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> >
> > I'm attempting GUB on 64-bit VM runing Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS
>
> Build failed on odcctools
that sounds normal, see lilypond-devel list of previous failures.
(wit
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:15:34AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>
> I'm attempting GUB on 64-bit VM runing Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS
>
> Progress so far attached. Advice welcome.
sorry, one-handed typing while eating.
see gub README for list of requirements. much less than lilypond
build requirement
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:15:33AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
>
> I'm attempting GUB on 64-bit VM runing Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS
Build failed on odcctools with a claim that they require 32-bit libraries.
I'll look into this further when time permits.
Cheers,
Colin.
--
Colin Hall
11:23:19 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
ce1d0e01ebe3cec6f50902394d5d7226bc516a68
11:23:22 Merged staging, now at:3d3ce70b38cf37274abb8d226c8a41f30b83462a
11:23:22Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
11:23:34Success:..
11:23:19 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
ce1d0e01ebe3cec6f50902394d5d7226bc516a68
11:23:22 Merged staging, now at:3d3ce70b38cf37274abb8d226c8a41f30b83462a
11:23:22Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
11:23:34Success:..
11:23:19 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
ce1d0e01ebe3cec6f50902394d5d7226bc516a68
11:23:22 Merged staging, now at:3d3ce70b38cf37274abb8d226c8a41f30b83462a
11:23:22Success:./autogen.sh --noconfigure
11:23:34Success:..
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 10:55 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Uh, oh, please not a letter. I almost always use seriffed fonts, and
>> it looks rather strange. What slightly longer but easy to remember
>> symbolics?
>>
>> ||
Please no. Let's keep this one-lettered.
(other
2012/6/4 Werner LEMBERG :
>>> Uh, oh, please not a letter. I almost always use seriffed fonts, and
>>> it looks rather strange. What slightly longer but easy to remember
>>> symbolics?
>>>
>>> |
>>>
>>> ||
>>
>> How about ! then? It actually has both | and . in it, and it _is_ a
>> sentence
- Original Message -
From: "Colin Hall"
To: "Lilypond Dev"
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: GUB on recent Ubuntu release
I'm attempting GUB on 64-bit VM runing Ubuntu Server 12.04 LTS
Progress so far attached. Advice welcome.
Cheers,
Colin
--
Colin Hall
I tried on
On 2012/06/04 04:10:55, Keith wrote:
lgtm
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely
File Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6248080/diff/23001/Documentation/notation/simultaneous.itely#newcode94
>> Uh, oh, please not a letter. I almost always use seriffed fonts, and
>> it looks rather strange. What slightly longer but easy to remember
>> symbolics?
>>
>> |
>>
>> ||
>
> How about ! then? It actually has both | and . in it, and it _is_ a
> sentence ending punctuation.
>
>> || |:
>
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> Frankly, it always confuses me when i have to code a thick line
>>> using "." - it's very unintuitive. What about changing this to
>>> some other character? Maybe uppercase i? It looks "thicker" -
>>> unless you use a sans-serif font...
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I thought abou
>> Frankly, it always confuses me when i have to code a thick line
>> using "." - it's very unintuitive. What about changing this to
>> some other character? Maybe uppercase i? It looks "thicker" -
>> unless you use a sans-serif font...
>
> +1
>
> I thought about uppercase I, too. "|I" looks n
Am 04.06.2012 09:14, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Thomas Morley
wrote:
together with Marc Hohl I was working on Issue 1320 for a couple of weeks.
Now we have a first working version using a new approach to design BarLines:
wow! Looks very impressive!
Please
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Thomas Morley
wrote:
>
> together with Marc Hohl I was working on Issue 1320 for a couple of weeks.
> Now we have a first working version using a new approach to design BarLines:
wow! Looks very impressive!
> Please note, there was need to change some glyph
33 matches
Mail list logo
