On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Is it possible to define (create) a new property from the user level?
>> I don't recall any information about this.
>
> I don't think we have an interface for this right now. What are you
> trying to achieve?
Some time ago i've come across
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2012/10/31 Janek Warchoł :
> [...]
>> Is it
>> possible to define (create) a new property from the user level? I
>> don't recall any information about this.
>>
>> Janek
>
> see:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-05/msg00543.html
>
> But I didn't try i
2012/10/31 Janek Warchoł :
[...]
> Is it
> possible to define (create) a new property from the user level? I
> don't recall any information about this.
>
> Janek
see:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2012-05/msg00543.html
But I didn't try it with latest devel-version.
-Harm
Janek Warchoł writes:
>>> {
>>> \override Stem #'my-funky-property = #5
>>> }
>
> ok, i see that doing what i demonstrated was a bad idea. Is it
> possible to define (create) a new property from the user level? I
> don't recall any information about this.
I don't think we have an interface f
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>> I'm not sure if i understand you correctly.
>>
>> Currently (checked with 2.17.3) i can write this in LilyPond code
>> (verbatim):
>
> It likely does not pass 2.17.6.
good to know.
>> {
>> \override Stem #'my-fu
Janek Warchoł writes:
> Hmm, if i'm reading git log correctly, i'm too late to give my LGTM to
> pushing these changes... ;)
> Anyway, i'm very happy to see this change!
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Keith OHara writes:
>>> In this case since both searches fail I
Hmm, if i'm reading git log correctly, i'm too late to give my LGTM to
pushing these changes... ;)
Anyway, i'm very happy to see this change!
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:07 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Keith OHara writes:
>> In this case since both searches fail I suppose the parser should warn
>>
Keith OHara writes:
> David Kastrup gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Keith OHara oco.net> writes:
>>
>> > I timed LilyPond setting the percussion parts of a symphony,
>
>> Huh, I'd not have expected a net slowdown. Were you using the version
>> _after_ running convert-ly, or are we talking about "compat
David Kastrup gnu.org> writes:
> Keith OHara oco.net> writes:
>
> > I timed LilyPond setting the percussion parts of a symphony,
> Huh, I'd not have expected a net slowdown. Were you using the version
> _after_ running convert-ly, or are we talking about "compatibility mode"
> where the #' sy
2012/10/30 David Kastrup :
> Francisco Vila writes:
>
>> 2012/10/28 David Kastrup :
>>> The translations for 2.16.1 are pretty much through, and I merged into
>>> master again.
>>
>> I updated Documentation/es/changes.tely for stable and committed to
>> translation branch. Then updated the same fi
Keith OHara writes:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
>>
>> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
>> >
>> > If we are going through with this one, it means that the
>> > override/revert/overrideProperty syntax
Francisco Vila writes:
> 2012/10/30 David Kastrup :
>> Francisco Vila writes:
>>
>>> 2012/10/28 David Kastrup :
The translations for 2.16.1 are pretty much through, and I merged into
master again.
>>>
>>> I updated Documentation/es/changes.tely for stable and committed to
>>> translati
Francisco Vila writes:
> 2012/10/28 David Kastrup :
>> The translations for 2.16.1 are pretty much through, and I merged into
>> master again.
>
> I updated Documentation/es/changes.tely for stable and committed to
> translation branch. Then updated the same file for 2.17 (I wrongly
> said it was
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
>
> > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
> >
> > If we are going through with this one, it means that the
> > override/revert/overrideProperty syntax presented to users is
> > funda
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> there is still the big convert-to-single-path-override patch
>>> pending, how available in dev/syntax and discussed in
>>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
>
> Everything looks fine! Thanks for your efforts. Am I right that
>
> \override foo
>> there is still the big convert-to-single-path-override patch
>> pending, how available in dev/syntax and discussed in
>> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
Everything looks fine! Thanks for your efforts. Am I right that
\override foo.bar
is the same as
\override
2012/10/28 David Kastrup :
> The translations for 2.16.1 are pretty much through, and I merged into
> master again.
I updated Documentation/es/changes.tely for stable and committed to
translation branch. Then updated the same file for 2.17 (I wrongly
said it was for 2.16 in the commit info) and co
David Kastrup writes:
> Hi folks,
>
> there is still the big convert-to-single-path-override patch pending,
> how available in dev/syntax and discussed in
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
>
> It is non-Patchy-checkable since Rietveld does not accept diffs of that
> size
David Kastrup wrote Sunday, October 28, 2012 4:34 PM
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
>
> If we are going through with this one, it means that the
> override/revert/overrideProperty syntax presented to users is
> fundamentally different from before.
I think this is a p
David Kastrup writes:
> So I'd aim for getting 2.16.1 closed on Wednesday or so. At that time,
> the next countdown will just have ended. I'd want to flush this syntax
> change in at that time.
Just to clear up any confusion: 2.16.1 is _not_ going to receive any of
the discussed changes. It i
Hi folks,
there is still the big convert-to-single-path-override patch pending,
how available in dev/syntax and discussed in
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2934>.
It is non-Patchy-checkable since Rietveld does not accept diffs of that
size. It runs make test fine, and I am c
21 matches
Mail list logo
