On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 04:45:51AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> There are *zero* chances that CJK support
> (probably based on my package) will ever be added to texinfo for the
> original tex or pdftex engine.
I suspected this might be the case.
>
> With XeTeX and luatex, native CJK support
> An even better solution would be for Texinfo to support these
> characters.
>
> - Just saying - I wouldn't expect any Lily developers to be working
> on that!
Well, some years ago I've added UTF-8 infrastructure support to
texinfo (based on the LaTeX code); additionally, I've written the CJK
p
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 03:26:22AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> An even better solution would be to
> provide a big square with four small digits in it, giving the
> character's Unicode value.
>
An even better solution would be for Texinfo to support these characters.
- Just saying - I would
> Try the dev/texinfo branch. It is not really suitable for Rietveld
> since it is two commits: one the current Texinfo version, and the
> second a much smaller commit just changing the problematic lines.
Two days ago I've built the documentation, and everything seems fine.
Thanks a lot!
One is
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> It is very unfortunate that we can't upgrade to the current
>>> texinfo.tex file; it contains a lot of improvements, including a
>>> very flexible URL command.
>>
>> Why can't we? If it is ok for us to distribute a modified version
>> of texinfo.tex, I am pretty sure
>> It is very unfortunate that we can't upgrade to the current
>> texinfo.tex file; it contains a lot of improvements, including a
>> very flexible URL command.
>
> Why can't we? If it is ok for us to distribute a modified version
> of texinfo.tex, I am pretty sure that I can concoct a fix for
>
>> this-is-a-very
>> -long-name.ly
>
> No, I don't like that idea. Filenames shouldn't be hyphenated.
I disagree. By starting a line with the hyphen it is clear that it is
part of the file name and not due to hyphenation (and we use a
typewriter font also). It is *much* less ugly than ove
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Hmm, that brings to mind a different possible solution:
>>
>> @macro lilyfile{\FILENAME\}
>> @/@file{\FILENAME\}
>> @end macro
>>
>> if there's no way to automate our desired behaviour (assuming we
>> can agree on a desired formatting in the output!), this might be
>>
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 02:07:39AM +0200, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>
> It is very unfortunate that we can't upgrade to the current
> texinfo.tex file; it contains a lot of improvements, including a very
> flexible URL command.
Why can't we do this? Do we just have to many custom hacks in our
existi
> Hmm, that brings to mind a different possible solution:
>
> @macro lilyfile{\FILENAME\}
> @/@file{\FILENAME\}
> @end macro
>
> if there's no way to automate our desired behaviour (assuming we
> can agree on a desired formatting in the output!), this might be
> an alternate solution?
It is ver
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:32:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>>
>> > David doesn't like @* so I avoided it. I'll use @*
>>
>> @* is awful. It cuts the current line _short_ unconditionally which
>> means that we may get abysmally bad breaks
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 10:32:28PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Phil Holmes" writes:
>
> > David doesn't like @* so I avoided it. I'll use @*
>
> @* is awful. It cuts the current line _short_ unconditionally which
> means that we may get abysmally bad breaks when the paragraph content
> chan
"Phil Holmes" writes:
>> @*
>> @file{blah}
>
> David doesn't like @* so I avoided it. I'll use @*
@* is awful. It cuts the current line _short_ unconditionally which
means that we may get abysmally bad breaks when the paragraph content
changes. It makes more sense to use @/ which merely permi
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
; ;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Fixes all black bars in NR (issue 6345088)
I've only looked at the first few files, but I have grave concerns with
this patch.
I feel terrible about it, though. Please, P
I've only looked at the first few files, but I have grave concerns with
this patch.
I feel terrible about it, though. Please, PLEASE, anybody who wants to
make lots of changes to the docs -- spend *at most* one hour working on
your changes, then submit them to get feedback. It must have taken a
- Original Message -
From:
To: ; ;
;
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2012 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fixes all black bars in NR (issue 6345088)
LGTM. Thanks a lot!
http://codereview.appspot.com/6345088/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/simultaneous-headword.ly
File Documentation
LGTM. Thanks a lot!
http://codereview.appspot.com/6345088/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/simultaneous-headword.ly
File Documentation/snippets/simultaneous-headword.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6345088/diff/1/Documentation/snippets/simultaneous-headword.ly#newcode16
Documentation/sn
LGTM
Trevor
http://codereview.appspot.com/6345088/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: Graham Percival, Trevor Daniels, J_lowe,
Message:
Lots of changes here. The NR still builds successfully following them
all, so I'm fairly confident, but please review if you have time.
Description:
Just a few changed files. A number of these are in /snippets and I have
updated the
19 matches
Mail list logo
