On Aug 27, 2015, at 23:59 , Dan Eble wrote:
> In your opinion, does scm_gc_mark (smob->self_scm ()) deserve to be
> implemented as member function in Smob?
Never mind. That seems like a slippery slope.
—
Dan
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond
In your opinion, does scm_gc_mark (smob->self_scm ()) deserve to be implemented
as member function in Smob? If so, what would you name it? Thanks.
—
Dan
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/li
The script:
scripts/auxiliar/translations-status.py
contains a comment:
"USAGE:
cd Documentation && translations-status.py
Write:
translations.itexi
/translations.itexi
out/translations-status.txt
Update word counts in:
contributor/doc-tran
Ralph Palmer wrote Thursday, August 27, 2015 7:27 PM
> Is there a new "official" submission process and / or location (web site)?
Not yet. During this hiatus any new bug created or any comment added will have
to be redone once the new Allura tracker is available, if they are to be
integrated
Am 27.08.2015 um 15:37 schrieb Phil Holmes:
Agreed. We had a grand regtest rating project about 3 years ago, and
my comment was that "I don`t see a broken crescendo.". However, it
was so hard to make general improvements to the regtests that I did
not follow most up any further.
I'm assumin
Agreed. We had a grand regtest rating project about 3 years ago, and my
comment was that "I don`t see a broken crescendo.". However, it was so hard
to make general improvements to the regtests that I did not follow most up
any further.
I'm assuming you could add this as an issue, but not fol
Hello,
forgive if this should be an unnecessary question, but: does this
regtest do what it should?
The description says:
\header{
texidoc = "Broken crescendi should be open on one side."
}
but the code reads
\relative {
c''1 \< \break c1\! \> \break c1\!
}
so each hairpin actually ends
[snip all]
Thanks. GUB is now built and will be uploaded this evening.
--
Phil Holmes
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2015/08/24 01:36:32, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2015/08/23 20:31:56, dak wrote:
> However, I seem to remember that I looked at the uses of data and
most uses
> seemed to be better replaced by something else. I don't know when
the "is
Good idea. I'll see what I can replace with more standard met
On 2015/08/27 11:33:18, dak wrote:
mailto:pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
> On 2015/08/27 10:28:48, J_lowe wrote:
>> Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
>
>> reg test diff here:
>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6OEJuOXRpNE56YkE
>
>> PATCH_REVIEW
>
> and second reg test here
On 2015/08/27 10:31:55, J_lowe wrote:
On 2015/08/27 10:28:48, J_lowe wrote:
> Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
>
> reg test diff here:
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6OEJuOXRpNE56YkE
>
> PATCH_REVIEW
and second reg test here
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9
pkx1...@gmail.com writes:
> On 2015/08/27 10:28:48, J_lowe wrote:
>> Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
>
>> reg test diff here:
>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6OEJuOXRpNE56YkE
>
>> PATCH_REVIEW
>
> and second reg test here
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LH
On 2015/08/27 10:28:48, J_lowe wrote:
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
reg test diff here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6OEJuOXRpNE56YkE
PATCH_REVIEW
and second reg test here
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6cFpVNDRsbThZX1U
https://codereview.
Passes make, make check and a full make doc.
reg test diff here:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B9nZ5LHV2Ds6OEJuOXRpNE56YkE
PATCH_REVIEW
https://codereview.appspot.com/265730043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://list
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Hi Phil,
>
> Many benefits. I just rewrote my recent flatten-ly tool in Python,
> more as an exercise than anything else. (Thinking vaguely that some
> people may find it more maintainable than Scheme. A foolish
> notion!). I used Python 2.7, oblivious of the fact that li
"Phil Holmes" writes:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Kastrup"
> To: "Phil Holmes"
>
>> I consider it a bad idea to have those changes in a release without
>> having them in master. I think what you want to do here is to back out
>> those changes again since they were required a
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
To: "Phil Holmes"
I consider it a bad idea to have those changes in a release without
having them in master. I think what you want to do here is to back out
those changes again since they were required as a consequence of issue
4550 which ha
Hi Phil,
Many benefits. I just rewrote my recent flatten-ly tool in Python, more as an
exercise than anything else. (Thinking vaguely that some people may find it
more maintainable than Scheme. A foolish notion!). I used Python 2.7, oblivious
of the fact that lilypond requires 2.4.5. So many th
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Bernard"
To:
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:44 AM
Subject: More recent Python version
Greetings All,
Current Python seems to be 2.4.5 as far as I can see. Is there any
movement to update it to say 2.7?
I have the time and inclination to make
19 matches
Mail list logo
