2014-02-18 20:02 GMT+01:00 :
>
> I suggest that you just forget about it until you have the leisure to
> read and contemplate the full comment #15 including its quoted material.
> I don't see that we are getting anywhere in that manner.
yes, it seems you're right. sorry...
j
_
On 2014/02/18 18:29:22, janek wrote:
sorry, i don't understand what you mean :(
I quoted the original description, I quoted the code you posted, I
listed the code that one arrives at when actually following the
description, and I gave an example of what works with that changed code.
I suggest
sorry, i don't understand what you mean :(
2014-02-18 19:17 GMT+01:00 :
> On 2014/02/18 18:09:08, janek wrote:
>
>> > I think that turning \coloredNotes into a context definition
>
> producer by
>>
>> > just removing the \layout { and matching } without any other change
>> > would work fine and m
On 2014/02/18 18:09:08, janek wrote:
> I think that turning \coloredNotes into a context definition
producer by
> just removing the \layout { and matching } without any other change
> would work fine and make a nice example.
You mean something like this?
coloredNotes =
#(define-scheme-fu
2014-02-18 18:06 GMT+01:00 :
> That example is disturbing since it is not really about using a function
> as an output definition, but rather about using a function as a
> _context_ definition. You usually would not expect the above to work
> but
> \layout { indent = #0 \coloredNotes #blue }
> to
On 2014/02/18 16:27:25, janek wrote:
LGTM with a suggestion
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/90001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/90001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode122
Documentation/changes
LGTM with a suggestion
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/90001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/90001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode122
Documentation/changes.tely:122: Scheme functions and identifiers
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2014/02/08 19:38:38, J_lowe wrote:
So this sounds like (and from my cursory experiments with
lilypond-book
compiling snippets) that bits of the NR
http://lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/long-repeats are
no longer
needed now.
--snip--
@lilypond[fragment,quote,relative=2]
\
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/20001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/20001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode64
Documentation/changes.tely:64: @code{Partcombiner}'s handing of repeated
note durations h
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/20001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/20001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode64
Documentation/changes.tely:64: @code{Partcombiner}'s handing of repeated
note durations h
Reviewers: dak,
Message:
On 2014/02/08 12:45:33, dak wrote:
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode108
Documentation/changes.tely:108:
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/60490050/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode108
Documentation/changes.tely:108: Chord change detection in @code{\repeat}
alternatives now happen
13 matches
Mail list logo
