On 1/12/09 7:05 AM, "Trevor Daniels" wrote:
>
>
> Reinhold Kainhofer wrote Monday, January 12, 2009 1:41 PM
>>
>> Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:21:05AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
>> http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:41:37PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > > everybody should look at lilypond.org instead.
> >
> > Where can the
Reinhold Kainhofer wrote Monday, January 12, 2009 1:41 PM
Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:21:05AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > > http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/index.html
> >
> > How often is this rebuilt?
>
> Every morning (
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:41:37PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > everybody should look at lilypond.org instead.
>
> Where can the latest docs (i.e. 2.12.2) be found on lilypond.org???
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:21:05AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> > > > http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/index.html
> > >
> > > How often is this rebuilt?
> >
> > Every morning (Euro
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 02:21:05AM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> > > http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/index.html
> >
> > How often is this rebuilt?
>
> Every morning (European time), since it's part of the "normal" Lily docs.
N
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 12. Januar 2009 01:15:47 schrieb Graham Percival:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:55:07PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
> > On 1/11/09 7:19 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> > > I have no personal opinion on the matter, but
> > > Documentation/u
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:55:07PM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 1/11/09 7:19 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
>
> > I have no personal opinion on the matter, but
> > Documentation/user/writing-texinfo.txt -- or rather, CG 3.2.4 --
> > has a few thoughts. :)
>
> For the benefit of the Frog
On 1/11/09 7:19 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:05:42AM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> I've only used @code{} because I saw it in the docs before I started.
>>
>> I think @var{} makes more sense.
>>
>> Anybody on -devel have a definitive answer to this questi
Carl D. Sorensen a écrit :
I've only used @code{} because I saw it in the docs before I started.
I think @var{} makes more sense.
Anybody on -devel have a definitive answer to this question?
The purpose of @var is marking variables (but not names of predefined
variables), so let's use it as
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 06:05:42AM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> I've only used @code{} because I saw it in the docs before I started.
>
> I think @var{} makes more sense.
>
> Anybody on -devel have a definitive answer to this question?
I have no personal opinion on the matter, but
Documen
On 1/10/09 11:49 PM, "Frédéric Bron" wrote:
>> So the description string for falls and doits should read something like
>> (_i "Create a fall or doit of length @code{delta}.")
>
> What should we use for variables? @code{varname} or @var{varname}? I
> have mainly seen @var{} but you seem to wa
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 07:30:23AM -0700, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 1/10/09 5:59 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
>
> > I propose to adopt either of the following solutions:
> >
> > 1. Define a macro for each predefined command: the docstring of each
> > function \foo would be stored in a macro
On 1/10/09 8:28 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> Carl D. Sorensen a écrit :
>> I propose something different. I think the current NR documentation is
>> right, with a usage description in the section of the NR, and a short
>> description from the docstring in the appendix that lists all music
>>
Carl D. Sorensen a écrit :
I propose something different. I think the current NR documentation is
right, with a usage description in the section of the NR, and a short
description from the docstring in the appendix that lists all music
functions. The reason I use the Identifiers page is that it
On 1/10/09 5:59 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
> Graham Percival a écrit :
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 08:12:49AM +0100, Frédéric Bron wrote:
>>>- I have mainly copied documentation from the Notation Manual. Would be
>>>better to enter the documentation only once because if the function
>>
Graham Percival a écrit :
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 08:12:49AM +0100, Frédéric Bron wrote:
- I have mainly copied documentation from the Notation Manual. Would be
better to enter the documentation only once because if the function
changes, we have to change the doc. at two locations.
De
17 matches
Mail list logo
