2008/5/17 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for the patch. The thing that bothers me is that I don't see why the
> lack of an X-extent should cause such a formatting disaster (and so it could
> be that the patch is simply covering up the real bug). Do you understand
> what's going on?
Nope
2008/5/9 Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/5/8 Risto Vääräniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I played around a bit with your example and found out that LP behaves
> > very inconsistently. If I just comment out the \break (and move fis &
> > g to the next line) I get different results than whe
2008/5/8 Neil Puttock :
> Are you testing each variation in isolation, or generating several
> systems in one go?
I called LP separately for every attached image.
-Risto
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mail
2008/5/8 Risto Vääräniemi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I played around a bit with your example and found out that LP behaves
> very inconsistently. If I just comment out the \break (and move fis &
> g to the next line) I get different results than when I just delete
> the \break. This isn't the first ti
Hi Greg,
2008/5/8 Greg Swinford:
> I'm not sure whether this bug has already been reported, but accidental
> suggestions don't seem to mix well with tied notes. The following example
> produces a lot of "warning: an outside-staff object should have a direction,
> defaulting to up" messages an
ew this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AccidentalSuggestion-problem-tp17122589p17122589.html
Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
