https://codereview.appspot.com/303980043/diff/20001/scm/time-signature-settings.scm
File scm/time-signature-settings.scm (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/303980043/diff/20001/scm/time-signature-settings.scm#newcode73
scm/time-signature-settings.scm:73: ((beamExceptions . ((end . ((1/20 .
LGMT. Thanks a lot!
https://codereview.appspot.com/304200043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Hello,
Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on
July 24th
A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be
found here:
http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/
__
Push: No patches to push at this time
Countdown:
4932 Doc: Descri
>> PDF outline is not lost. It is hidden. The following command can
>> let show it.
>>
>> $ gs -q -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=foo.new.pdf \
>> foo.pdf -c '[ /PageMode /UseOutlines /DOCVIEW pdfmark'
>
> What exactly do you mean with `hidden'? Are PDF viewers still capa
> I've created Issue 4940.
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4940/
Thanks!
> PDF outline is not lost. It is hidden. The following command can
> let show it.
>
> $ gs -q -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -sOutputFile=foo.new.pdf \
> foo.pdf -c '[ /PageMode /UseOutlines /
>> I think this is due to texinfo.tex bug.
>> This patch might fix it. [...]
I've created Issue 4940.
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4940/
>> However, even if fix this, there are two problems.
>>
>> PDF outline is lost.
>> Remote PDF links (between PDFs) are lost.
>
> Interest
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> Indeed. So how to achieve that in the sense of `format the
>>> after-grace notes nicely, then move them as a block to the right as
>>> much as possible without collisions'?
>>
>> I don't think this is constrained to \afterGrace. I think that
>> grace note passages sh
>> Indeed. So how to achieve that in the sense of `format the
>> after-grace notes nicely, then move them as a block to the right as
>> much as possible without collisions'?
>
> I don't think this is constrained to \afterGrace. I think that
> grace note passages should be bounded only by non-gr
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> The main problem appears to be that there really does not appear to
>> be a point to align gracenotes unless they are sharing stems.
>
> Yes.
>
>>> Attached is a scan from IMSLP (Schenker edition from UE).
>>
>> Basically, not aligned at all with other staves.
>
> Indee
> The main problem appears to be that there really does not appear to
> be a point to align gracenotes unless they are sharing stems.
Yes.
>> Attached is a scan from IMSLP (Schenker edition from UE).
>
> Basically, not aligned at all with other staves.
Indeed. So how to achieve that in the se
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> The grace notes in the incipit for the `Rhythms' section are really
>>> badly positioned – I would consider this a bug actually...
>>
>> Maybe we need a different afterGraceFraction value here?
>
> I think it's not only a problem of a different `afterGraceFraction'...
>> The grace notes in the incipit for the `Rhythms' section are really
>> badly positioned – I would consider this a bug actually...
>
> Maybe we need a different afterGraceFraction value here?
I think it's not only a problem of a different `afterGraceFraction'...
> I mean, why isn't this an opt
Werner LEMBERG writes:
> [47b45b556]
>
> The grace notes in the incipit for the `Rhythms' section are really
> badly positioned – I would consider this a bug actually...
>
> Isn't there a better example we could use?
Maybe we need a different afterGraceFraction value here? I mean, why
isn't thi
13 matches
Mail list logo
