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,
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 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
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,
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
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
> I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
> to themselves, never mind units. In particular integers are used
> quite often in manners where a "unit" behavior of identifiers would
> be rather more than less surprising.
+1. However, it should be documented, together wit
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> I am considering removing existing functionality that's not likely to
> have seen any use so far, but at least is nailed down in regtests
> (input/regression/optional-args-backup.ly). So I am looking for
> objections.
ok. I think i don't h
Janek Warchoł writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> [...]
>> In general, not requiring lookahead makes things more versatile.
>> [...]
>
> thanks - i think i more or less understand why we prefer not to
> require lookahead.
> However, i'm not sure whether you
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
> In general, not requiring lookahead makes things more versatile.
> [...]
thanks - i think i more or less understand why we prefer not to
require lookahead.
However, i'm not sure whether you are asking us for any opinion (if
so, w
Hi,
I am trying to get into somewhat consistent music function behavior.
Some argument types for music functions inherently require lookahead:
simple music expressions like c4 (since you can still add -\accent at
will), symbol chains (like Bottom as it may be followed by
. Accidental), durations
12 matches
Mail list logo
