On 2012/09/13 00:06:12, dak wrote:
I copy your "not happy" sentiment, but when thinking this through,
one really wants to have both override and tweak under a reasonably
idiomatic shortcut available.
After trying them out, the best names I can think of are:
"hideOne" for the tweak; it should
2012/9/14 Phil Holmes :
> OK - so there's been a lot of discussion of pre- and post-fix, and a load of
> other stuff I don't understand.So I had a think about what it is about
> lilypond syntax that p**s me off. And I concluded that it's nothing to do
> with whether we write c4 /p for a quiet croc
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:13:00PM +0200, Marc Hohl wrote:
>
> \include "guitarSettings"
>
> \include "choirSettings" \with { \SATBoptions }
>
So you are thinking along the lines of the LaTex package system.
I would go along with that.
Bernard.
___
lil
Am 14.09.2012 19:10, schrieb m...@mikesolomon.org:
On 14 sept. 2012, at 19:56, Phil Holmes wrote:
OK - so there's been a lot of discussion of pre- and post-fix, and a load of
other stuff I don't understand.So I had a think about what it is about lilypond
syntax that p**s me off. And I concl
Am 14.09.2012 20:48, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:39:53AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
PS: I'm still not happy with a separate mailing list.
A separate fluffy mailing list not to be taken seriously where people
may decide that no further changes t
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:39:53AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
> > PS: I'm still not happy with a separate mailing list.
>
> A separate fluffy mailing list not to be taken seriously where people
> may decide that no further changes to syntax will be allowed.
That list
On 14 sept. 2012, at 19:56, Phil Holmes wrote:
> OK - so there's been a lot of discussion of pre- and post-fix, and a load of
> other stuff I don't understand.So I had a think about what it is about
> lilypond syntax that p**s me off. And I concluded that it's nothing to do
> with whether we
OK - so there's been a lot of discussion of pre- and post-fix, and a load of
other stuff I don't understand.So I had a think about what it is about
lilypond syntax that p**s me off. And I concluded that it's nothing to do
with whether we write c4 /p for a quiet crochet c, as opposed to /p 4c.
On 14 sept. 2012, at 11:42, Phil Holmes wrote:
> - Original Message - From:
> To:
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:01 AM
> Subject: laissez-vibrer-tie-beam.ly
>
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> In the past couple days I've been getting changes in
>> laissez-vibrer-tie-beam.ly almost every ti
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> It would be tremendously helpful if you can show possible syntax
>>> *alternatives* instead of just pretending to be a naysayer.
>>
>> I've posted actual working definitions for that purpose.
>
> It seems I've missed that, lost in the many examples you've given to
> dem
On 2012/09/14 06:53:47, Keith wrote:
On 2012/09/14 06:16:57, benko.pal wrote:
> main argument: I can't guess why the user chose a
> specific way of manipulating the staff and how (s)he
> interprets it,
If the user writes
> \override #'staff-space = #0.5
he wants to scale things.
If he write
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:01 AM
Subject: laissez-vibrer-tie-beam.ly
Hey all,
In the past couple days I've been getting changes in
laissez-vibrer-tie-beam.ly almost every time I run the regtests on at
least two different seemingly unrelated p
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> The current format needs to have a one-to-one correspondance (or
>> “bijection”) between ly and scheme. Graphically, the process is
>> something like this:
>>
>> ly <--> scheme -> pdf/midi
>
> I don't think that it is bijective.
It isn't. Some music function
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:39:52PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> > I think we need to decide what direction we want the syntax to
>> > move in (or indeed, decide not to change the syntax at all!).
>>
>> I don't see the point in the repeate
- Original Message -
From: "Don Armstrong"
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:51 PM
Subject: Outdated help2man; avoiding needing to "build" help2man.pl
In stepmake/stepmake/help2man-rules.make, I ran across the following:
[snip]
Don,
We're generally slightly wary of changi
http://codereview.appspot.com/6499105/diff/1/lily/stem.cc
File lily/stem.cc (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6499105/diff/1/lily/stem.cc#oldcode814
lily/stem.cc:814: if (lh && robust_scm2int (lh->get_property
("duration-log"), 0) < 1)
On 2012/09/14 06:38:10, Keith wrote:
Removing this look
> The current format needs to have a one-to-one correspondance (or
> “bijection”) between ly and scheme. Graphically, the process is
> something like this:
>
> ly <--> scheme -> pdf/midi
I don't think that it is bijective. It's rather that anything in ly
should be able to be represent
17 matches
Mail list logo
