Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2540 in lilypond: Patch: Give \tweak anoptional grob parameter for tweaking indirect grobs

"Trevor Daniels" writes: > Trevor Daniels wrote Friday, July 06, 2012 11:21 PM > >> This is interesting. This should refer to issue 2560, as correctly >> entered in the commit message, but git cl for some reason selected >> issue 2540, and I failed to notice the error, and even copied it >> when

Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2540 in lilypond: Patch: Give \tweak anoptional grob parameter for tweaking indirect grobs

Trevor Daniels wrote Friday, July 06, 2012 11:21 PM > This is interesting. This should refer to issue 2560, as correctly entered > in the commit message, but git cl for some reason selected issue 2540, and I > failed to notice the error, and even copied it when composing my text. Although I s

Re: [Lilypond-auto] Issue 2540 in lilypond: Patch: Give \tweak an optional grob parameter for tweaking indirect grobs

This is interesting. This should refer to issue 2560, as correctly entered in the commit message, but git cl for some reason selected issue 2540, and I failed to notice the error, and even copied it when composing my text. As I'm still feeling my way with the new (for me) git cl, could someone

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Marc Hohl wrote: > Am 06.07.2012 18:06, schrieb Joe Neeman: > >> [...] >> >> >> The semi-trivial C++ function is _not_ useful for the scheme code. It is >> used in two parts of the C++ code. However, because it belonged to the same >> file as various other function

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

Am 06.07.2012 18:06, schrieb Joe Neeman: [...] The semi-trivial C++ function is _not_ useful for the scheme code. It is used in two parts of the C++ code. However, because it belonged to the same file as various other functions that were being ported, Marc was planning to port this semi-trivi

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > Joe Neeman writes: > > > I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme > > bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility. > > > > > > In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 p

Re: Doc: document \on-the-fly (2579) (issue 6347062)

On 2012/07/06 07:38:05, dak wrote: Yes, it's best to drop the verb. That is more consistent with the rest of the table. But we are nitpicking here, aren't we :) Done. http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-de

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

Am 06.07.2012 09:51, schrieb David Kastrup: Joe Neeman writes: I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility. In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 places in the C++ code, neit

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

Joe Neeman writes: > I think it's exercises like that that help strengthen the Scheme > bindings and thus lead to more customizability/extensibility. > > > In this case, I disagree. The function in question is used in 2 places > in the C++ code, neither of which is a good candidate for >

Re: Is gcc able to handle anonymous functions?

Am 05.07.2012 18:36, schrieb Joe Neeman: On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:44 AM, m...@apollinemike.com > wrote: On 5 juil. 2012, at 08:14, Joe Neeman wrote: [...] On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 12:37 AM, m...@apollinemike.com

Re: Doc: document \on-the-fly (2579) (issue 6347062)

http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/diff/1002/Documentation/notation/input.itely File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/diff/1002/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1017 Documentation/notation/input.itely:1017: @item (on-page nmbr) @ta

Re: Doc: document \on-the-fly (2579) (issue 6347062)

http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/diff/1002/Documentation/notation/input.itely File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/diff/1002/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1017 Documentation/notation/input.itely:1017: @item (on-page nmbr) @ta

Re: Doc: document \on-the-fly (2579) (issue 6347062)

On 2012/07/05 12:48:32, thomasmorley65 wrote: Please add the newly implemented on-page-feature. Done. I changed the description to fit better with the column heading of the table. http://codereview.appspot.com/6347062/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing l