Hi,
I quote some of the logs below...
Il giorno mar, 09/10/2012 alle 00.33 +, grenoui...@lilynet.net ha
scritto:
> 21:58:01 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
> c7a3623a056891d48b13fe14fd6ee042ac666822
> 21:58:27 Merged staging, now at: c7a3623a056891d48b13fe14fd6ee042a
Martin Tarenskeen zonnet.nl> writes:
I am not in favour of allowing different commands \times 2/3 and \tuplet3/2 to
do the same job. My voice would go to: just keep \times x/y the wayit is. I
can't see what makes 3/2 easier than 2/3. And having the choiceof two commands
doing the same job wi
On Mon, 8 Oct 2012, Trevor Daniels wrote:
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
Thomas Morley writes:
[...]
So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
think that \tuplet 2/3 is bett
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/17001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/17001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode3916
Documentation/notation/changing
LGTM, without testing, and without really understanding the change.
However, simplifications and generalizations are always a good thing.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6635050/diff/1/Documentation/de/notation/pitches.itely
File Documentation/de/notation/pitches.itely (right):
http://codereview.
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
>>
>> > Thomas Morley writes:
>> >
>> >>> In this case, i
>> >>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
>> >>>
21:58:01 (UTC) Begin LilyPond compile, previous commit at
c7a3623a056891d48b13fe14fd6ee042ac666822
21:58:27 Merged staging, now at:c7a3623a056891d48b13fe14fd6ee042ac666822
21:58:29Success:sudo -u lilybuild ./autogen.sh
--noconfigure
21:59:05Success:
On 10/09/2012 01:12 AM, Graham Percival wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Absolutely! Inverting the fraction for \tuplet was the original reason
for inventing it, IIRC.
Woah, really? I thought the whole point was to avoid the
confusion between \time and \
On 10/08/2012 11:25 PM, Thomas Morley wrote:
But once I saw a bigband-part for guitar, notated with changing clefs
between bass and treble.
Well, it was the real treble, no transposition. That it was the real
treble was only understandable from the context.
The real stupidity there is surely th
2012/10/9 Graham Percival :
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>
>> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
>>
>> > Thomas Morley writes:
>> >
>> >>> In this case, i
>> >>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
>> >>> o
On 10/08/2012 10:44 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
First, we shouldn't mix content and presentation. I think it's a very
important rule; one of the best things in LilyPond is that she allows
to separate music from its layout.
Yes, fair point. But one thing to be careful of particularly as regards
On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:49:39PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
>
> > Thomas Morley writes:
> >
> >>> In this case, i
> >>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
> >>> of 2), because it corresponds to mat
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> \override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = "rit."
>>
>> as
>>
>> \override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = "rit."
>
> I like this.
Voila.
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2883>
--
David Kastrup
David Kastrup wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 10:45 PM
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> [...]
>>> So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
>>> intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
>>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 note
2012/10/8 David Kastrup :
> Thomas Morley writes:
>
>> [...]
>>> So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
>>> intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
>>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
>>> of 2), because it
On 2012/10/08 20:04:21, Graham Percival wrote:
LGTM
Thanks!
Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:3901: @itemize
technically this would be better as an @enumerate a, but this isn't a
big deal.
Ah yes, I'd forgotten that. I'll change it in the next patch set,
since I have to submit
Thomas Morley writes:
> [...]
>> So, i believe that LilyPond shouldn't always follow her users'
>> intuition, even if they are professional musicians. In this case, i
>> think that \tuplet 2/3 is better than \tuplet 3/2 (for 3 notes in time
>> of 2), because it corresponds to mathematical ratio,
2012/10/8 Janek Warchoł :
[...]
> Joseph mentioned scores in which tuplet style changes all the time. I
> think that a proper solution to this problem is to create custom
> shortcuts for overriding TupletNumber style - this way you still have
> layout separated from score (i.e. one can easily turn
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 08/09/12 16:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>
>> I have in the past talked with people from Henle; also, Schirmer has a
>> style guide that you can order as a book.
>
>
> How far in the past are we talking about? (Just for clarity.)
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>> Wait, does David suggest to change things so that we won't be able to
>> write \paper { indent = 2\cm } ?
>
> No, he doesn't.
>
>> Or does the suggested change concern something else?
>
> Yes, it does.
>
>> PS David,
Hi,
i had some spare time when commuting, so i've written down a few
thoughts on this topic.
First, we shouldn't mix content and presentation. I think it's a very
important rule; one of the best things in LilyPond is that she allows
to separate music from its layout.
I think that what Joseph su
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Thomas Morley
> wrote:
>> Speaking as a user:
>> I never used 3\cm (don't like it), but I know others did (in \paper ).
>> So no objection from me, and there will be the workaround.
>
> Wait, does David suggest to change things so that we
On 2012/10/08 20:08:20, Graham Percival wrote:
The changelog says
"Don't update \version when no rule is applied."
That's what the existing -d --diff-version-update command does.
No, that's what the existing -d --diff-version-update is supposed to do.
The problem was that if the last applic
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 4:08 PM, wrote:
> The changelog says
>
> "Don't update \version when no rule is applied."
>
> That's what the existing -d --diff-version-update command does. If this
> is intended to be the default behaviour now, then the command-line
> option should be removed.
No, -d do
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode3961
Documentation/notation/changing
The changelog says
"Don't update \version when no rule is applied."
That's what the existing -d --diff-version-update command does. If this
is intended to be the default behaviour now, then the command-line
option should be removed. I would rather keep convert-ly as-is (in
terms of this behavio
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Thomas Morley
wrote:
> Speaking as a user:
> I never used 3\cm (don't like it), but I know others did (in \paper ).
> So no objection from me, and there will be the workaround.
Wait, does David suggest to change things so that we won't be able to
write \paper { in
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode3901
Documentation/notation/
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To:
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: LilyPond 2.17.4 released
David Nalesnik writes:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
-
This version contains work in progress
On 2012/10/08 07:46:09, Keith wrote:
Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:4087: -\tweak
#'control-points
#'((-2 . 3) (-1 . 3.1) (0 . 3.2) (1 . 2.4)) ( <> )
g2( <>) f is the same as g2( f)
so any implication that the <> does something different might mislead.
They are, of cours
Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote Monday, October 08, 2012 1:19 PM
> I think this is the best way to characterize it. You might want to rephrase
> it
> slightly to make it more personal to the reader:
>
> -
> This version contains work in progress. You will have acces
Hello,
On 8 October 2012 14:19, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> On 10/08/2012 01:29 PM, James wrote:
>>
>> I have the good fortune to play with
>> semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
>> paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
>> but 'no on
On 10/08/2012 01:29 PM, James wrote:
I have the good fortune to play with
semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
but 'no one really does' and besides when do you stop calling them
their numerically accur
James writes:
> I have no problem with having more commands in that while 'musos'
> might have their terms, I have the good fortune to play with
> semi-professionals and also teachers who when I queried said [I
> paraphrase], well sure I guess you could technically call them that,
> but 'no one r
David Nalesnik writes:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
> wrote:
>
>> -
>> This version contains work in progress. You will have access to the very
>> latest features, but some may be incomplete, and you may encounter bugs and
>> crashes. If
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
>> Negative connotation. But reversed (see below) it is not actually that
>> bad.
>>
>> "it is strongly recommended that only experienced users try working with
>> this release. Everyone else is encouraged to use the stable 2.16
>> version ins
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
wrote:
> -
> This version contains work in progress. You will have access to the very
> latest features, but some may be incomplete, and you may encounter bugs and
> crashes. If you require a stable version of Li
On 10/07/2012 01:22 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
I'd rephrase the first two sentences as
This version contains work in progress. Only users who are prepared to
deal with crashes or unexpected ...
+1
I think this is the best way to characterize it. You might want to rephrase it
slightly to make
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2012/10/8 David Kastrup :
>> Keith OHara writes:
>>
>>> Werner LEMBERG gnu.org> writes:
>>>
> I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
> to themselves, never mind units.
>>>
>>> Sensible.
>>>
+1. However, it should be documented,
David Kastrup writes:
> Negative connotation. But reversed (see below) it is not actually that
> bad.
>
> "it is strongly recommended that only experienced users try working with
> this release. Everyone else is encouraged to use the stable 2.16
> version instead."
>
> Something like that.
Why
Ian,
On 6 October 2012 16:40, Ian Hulin wrote:
> On 05/10/12 08:10, James wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 5 October 2012 00:19, Ian Hulin wrote:
>>> This is a proposal to move the triplet/tuplet discussion forward.
>>>
>>> There will be new commands to supplement (or eventually replace) the
>>> curren
2012/10/8 David Kastrup :
> Keith OHara writes:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> > I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
>>> > to themselves, never mind units.
>>
>> Sensible.
>>
>>> +1. However, it should be documented, together with the work-around.
Spe
On 10/08/2012 01:03 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
Actually, thinking of it, it would actually be quite simple to calculate the
displayed fraction with durations from the given durations and the tuplet
fraction (except that there is no way to distinguish 3:2 and 4:6).
(m*dur1):(n*dur2) = tuplet f
Keith OHara writes:
> Werner LEMBERG gnu.org> writes:
>
>> > I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
>> > to themselves, never mind units.
>
> Sensible.
>
>> +1. However, it should be documented, together with the work-around.
>
> It was only a couple months ago that
Werner LEMBERG gnu.org> writes:
> > I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
> > to themselves, never mind units.
Sensible.
> +1. However, it should be documented, together with the work-around.
It was only a couple months ago that David allowed 3\cm to be used as
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6561064/diff/10001/Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely#newcode4087
Documentation/notation/changing
46 matches
Mail list logo
