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
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> One rather sobering consequence is that any command accepting a grob
>>> specification will _not_ be able to take a proper string generated in
>>> Scheme us
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> [..]
>> So if we want to avoid this kind of fallacy, there are a few ways out.
>> I decided to take a reasonably safe route by foregoing lookahead for '.'
>> unless explicitly told so. How does a function tell Lily
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:28 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> [..]
> So if we want to avoid this kind of fallacy, there are a few ways out.
> I decided to take a reasonably safe route by foregoing lookahead for '.'
> unless explicitly told so. How does a function tell LilyPond to look
> for a string se
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> As a consequence of the current inconsistent \override syntax I
>> already complained about recently, you will then also be able to
>> write
>>
>> \override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details left text = "rit."
>
> This I would probably drop (if possible). The dot shows
> As a consequence of the current inconsistent \override syntax I
> already complained about recently, you will then also be able to
> write
>
> \override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details left text = "rit."
This I would probably drop (if possible). The dot shows a hierarchy
far better than a sp
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> \override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = "rit."
>>
>> as
>>
>> \override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = "rit."
>
> I like this.
Actually, the recently unified word syntax plays a bit into it as well
since otherwise "bound-details" wou
> \override Bottom.TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = "rit."
>
> as
>
> \override Bottom.TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = "rit."
I like this.
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mail
James writes:
> On 4 October 2012 09:28, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
> ..
>
>>
>> Using the symbol list form would have the advantage that
>>
>> \override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = "rit."
>>
>> could equivalently be expressed as
>>
>> \override TextSpanner bound-details.left.
Hello,
On 4 October 2012 09:28, David Kastrup wrote:
>
..
>
> Using the symbol list form would have the advantage that
>
> \override TextSpanner #'(bound-details left text) = "rit."
>
> could equivalently be expressed as
>
> \override TextSpanner bound-details.left.text = "rit."
>
> and
Warming up a previous discussion because of new insights/ongoing work.
David Kastrup writes:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
>
>> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz").
>>>
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2012/9/12 David Kastrup :
>> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>>
>>> On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
incentive is
2012/9/12 David Kastrup :
> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>
>> On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
>>> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
>>> incentive is to be able to have music functio
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a li
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:04 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
>>> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). T
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
>> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
>> incentive is to be able to have music functions be abl
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 5:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
> incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
> Stem as well as
Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
>>> want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz").
>>
>> Go!
>
> isn't using symbols
>
>'(xxx yyy zzz)
>
> more scheme-like, schemonic, schemesque?
Well,
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
>> want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz").
>
> Go!
isn't using symbols
'(xxx yyy zzz)
more scheme-like, schemonic, schemesque?
Jan
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen | GNU LilyPond http:/
> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I
> want xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz").
Go!
Werner
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond
David Nalesnik writes:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Basically, if a music function wants to provide a shorthand for an
>> override, not being able to specify an optional context is a nuisance.
>> I currently have just the same problem writing a \hide
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:38 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
>
> Basically, if a music function wants to provide a shorthand for an
> override, not being able to specify an optional context is a nuisance.
> I currently have just the same problem writing a \hide function that is
> supposed to be a
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
>> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
>> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
>> incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
>> Stem
2012/9/12 David Kastrup :
>
> Hi,
>
> if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
> xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
> incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
> Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a func
On 2012-09-12 10:38, David Kastrup wrote:
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a func
Hi,
if we write xxx in LilyPond, this is considered to be a string. I want
xxx.yyy.zzz to be a list of strings ("xxx" "yyy" "zzz"). The main
incentive is to be able to have music functions be able to accept both
Stem as well as Staff.TimeSignature as a function argument.
At the current point o
26 matches
Mail list logo
