Marc Hohl writes:
> Am 14.09.2012 20:48, schrieb Graham Percival:
>
>> [...]
>> David, after Waltrop I was really enthusiastic about lilypond. I
>> saw the problems that Rudolfo had in trying to make a simple
>> change to the website, and I was really fired up to fix the
>> problems in the CG.
On 14/09/12 07:13, Graham Percival wrote:
> http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_6.html
>
> ** Summary
>
> We’ve gone over the same arguments a number of times, so let’s try
> to resolve them. Fluff will go on a new mailing lilypond-quacks
> mailing list. Serious proposals, if any, will go to
> li
Il giorno gio, 13/09/2012 alle 23.13 -0700, Graham Percival ha scritto:
> http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_6.html
>
> ** Summary
>
> We’ve gone over the same arguments a number of times, so let’s try
> to resolve them. Fluff will go on a new mailing lilypond-quacks
> mailing list. Serious prop
Graham Percival writes:
> David, after Waltrop I was really enthusiastic about lilypond. I
> saw the problems that Rudolfo had in trying to make a simple
> change to the website, and I was really fired up to fix the
> problems in the CG. I was also fired up to organize weekly
> discussions on i
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Marc Hohl wrote:
> The whole discussion reminds me of the way songs are written in the
> music band I play – David, do you remind the story? I think I told it
> even before Graham arrived, so it was just you, Janek, and my wife
> at Waltrop listening to my clumsy
Am 14.09.2012 20:48, schrieb Graham Percival:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:39:53AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Werner LEMBERG writes:
PS: I'm still not happy with a separate mailing list.
A separate fluffy mailing list not to be taken seriously where people
may decide that no further changes t
On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:39:53AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
> > PS: I'm still not happy with a separate mailing list.
>
> A separate fluffy mailing list not to be taken seriously where people
> may decide that no further changes to syntax will be allowed.
That list
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> The current format needs to have a one-to-one correspondance (or
>> “bijection”) between ly and scheme. Graphically, the process is
>> something like this:
>>
>> ly <--> scheme -> pdf/midi
>
> I don't think that it is bijective.
It isn't. Some music function
> The current format needs to have a one-to-one correspondance (or
> “bijection”) between ly and scheme. Graphically, the process is
> something like this:
>
> ly <--> scheme -> pdf/midi
I don't think that it is bijective. It's rather that anything in ly
should be able to be represent
http://lilypond.org/~graham/gop/gop_6.html
** Summary
We’ve gone over the same arguments a number of times, so let’s try
to resolve them. Fluff will go on a new mailing lilypond-quacks
mailing list. Serious proposals, if any, will go to
lilypond-devel. Anybody with a serious proposal must be fami
10 matches
Mail list logo
