On 2013/06/11 16:15:45, Keith wrote:
> I see that they are completely identical, even after your patch!
This should
> probably be fixed too, both in the docs and in the code...
There is no harm in having both. There might be people who habitually
use
each, and we cannot convert-ly their
Excellent! Count me in.
Janek
2013/6/11 David Kastrup :
>
> As announced in January, I'd like to offer a developer meeting in
> Waltrop this year again. Due to the limited meeting and accommodation
> space (limit is about 20 participants) and the time frame, things like
> introductory courses for
As announced in January, I'd like to offer a developer meeting in
Waltrop this year again. Due to the limited meeting and accommodation
space (limit is about 20 participants) and the time frame, things like
introductory courses for LilyPond would not make much sense: the focus
will be on having d
But \pad-around #-1 does work to reduce the extent of markup,
and there is no reason to disallow that.
OK. However, we need good documentation examples...
> In particular, I can't see any difference
> between \pad-around and \pad-markup.
There is no harm in having both.
Of course not, but
On 2013/06/11 06:40:13, lemzwerg wrote:
Yes, the union, since the documentation of \pad-to box says `at least
the X-EXT,
Y-EXT space'. However, the documentation strings for all \pad-XXX
functions
should be updated accordingly.
But \pad-around #-1 does work to reduce the extent of markup,
