On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:55 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/diff/7004/lily/stem.cc
> File lily/stem.cc (right):
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/diff/7004/lily/stem.cc#newcode439
> lily/stem.cc:439: me->set_property ("stencil", SCM_BOOL_F);
> This lo
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/diff/7004/lily/stem.cc
File lily/stem.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/diff/7004/lily/stem.cc#newcode439
lily/stem.cc:439: me->set_property ("stencil", SCM_BOOL_F);
This looks like a hack; it's certainly not idiomatic (I can see only one
pla
On Jun 1, 2011, at 10:54 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm afraid it's still a bit flaky:
>
> \relative c' {
> \override NoteHead #'stem-attachment = ##f
> c8 d e f
> }
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x0040bbfb in ly_cdr (x=0x404) at ./include/lily-guile.
I'm afraid it's still a bit flaky:
\relative c' {
\override NoteHead #'stem-attachment = ##f
c8 d e f
}
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x0040bbfb in ly_cdr (x=0x404) at ./include/lily-guile.hh:199
199 inline SCM ly_cdr (SCM x) { return SCM_CDR (x); }
(gdb) b
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Hey Neil,
I think this does the trick.
Cheers,
MS
Sorry - by "this" I meant "this new patchset uploaded on rietveld."
Fatigue...
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://
On 2011/05/31 16:33:22, Neil Puttock wrote:
Hi Mike,
Have you considered what might happen if a user tries to get rid of
all stems?
\relative c' {
\once \override NoteHead #'stem-attachment = ##f
c4
}
-> segfault
I think I'd prefer an event to control this (I realize this greatl
Hi Mike,
Have you considered what might happen if a user tries to get rid of all
stems?
\relative c' {
\once \override NoteHead #'stem-attachment = ##f
c4
}
-> segfault
I think I'd prefer an event to control this (I realize this greatly
increases the complexity for little benefit though),
On 2011/05/31 12:39:03, Graham Percival wrote:
On 2011/05/31 06:59:21, http://mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
> Graham, could you include this in your next countdown?
I see trees of green, red roses too,
I watch them bloom for me and you and the broken
input/regression/drums.ly
And I think to m
On 2011/05/31 06:59:21, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
Graham, could you include this in your next countdown?
I see trees of green, red roses too,
I watch them bloom for me and you and the broken
input/regression/drums.ly
And I think to myself, what a wonderful world.
I hear babies cry, I watch
On May 28, 2011, at 2:28 PM, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
> Do we need to change the definition of stem-attachment in
> scm/define-grobs.scm to be ,boolean-or-number-pair? (and maybe define a
> new ,boolean-or-number-pair predicate)?
>
To my knowledge, #f can be used for all properties. So
Do we need to change the definition of stem-attachment in
scm/define-grobs.scm to be ,boolean-or-number-pair? (and maybe define a
new ,boolean-or-number-pair predicate)?
Do we need to make any changes to ly/note-head-scheme.cc?
Do we need to check for #f in ly/note-collision.cc?
I just did a gi
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 08:23:19AM +, mts...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just touching base to see if people felt this patch is pushable after
> the changes suggested by Carl.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/
I've added it here:
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1672
so tha
Just touching base to see if people felt this patch is pushable after
the changes suggested by Carl.
Cheers,
MS
http://codereview.appspot.com/4547058/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypo
On May 22, 2011, at 3:23 PM, carl.d.soren...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What if instead of setting a boolean stem-ignore, you just set
> stem-attachment = ##f in order to get this behavior? This would be
> consistent
> with setting stencil = ##f in order to eliminate the stencil.
>
> If you want to k
What if instead of setting a boolean stem-ignore, you just set
stem-attachment = ##f in order to get this behavior? This would be
consistent
with setting stencil = ##f in order to eliminate the stencil.
If you want to keep a separate boolean, I think I'd prefer the name
no-stem to stem-ignore.
On May 22, 2011, at 10:10 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Hi Mike
>
> The interface to this looks rather clumsy.
>
> As you want to ignore only the extreme note
> head on a stem I'd prefer this to be controlled
> by a property of Stem, rather than NoteHead.
> Then you don't need to use tweak, with t
edefs like \stemDownShort.
Trevor
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Cc: ;
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 8:38 AM
Subject: Allows LilyPond to ignore certain note-heads in a stem.
(issue4547058)
Reviewers: ,
Message:
I put this together to do some work with harmonics. It seems to
do
Reviewers: ,
Message:
I put this together to do some work with harmonics. It seems to do the
trick OK.
I've been running this test file to see if it breaks anything:
\relative c' {
\stemDown
\stemUp
\repeat unfold 8 8
\stemDown
\repeat unfold 8 8
1
}
Description:
Allo
20 matches
Mail list logo
