2011/4/7 :
> Sorry about the confusion on documentation -- I misread the initial
> version. Yes, even though the current version is incorrect, let's just
> go with it anyway.
>
> (really, adding new features and writing documentation about them are
> completely different things; there's no point
Sorry about the confusion on documentation -- I misread the initial
version. Yes, even though the current version is incorrect, let's just
go with it anyway.
(really, adding new features and writing documentation about them are
completely different things; there's no point holding back a new fea
2011/4/6 Francisco Vila :
> 2011/4/6 :
>> Uploading third patch.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/
>
> If it is done, could you push it by yourself before 2.14? I never
> know how long exactly to wait before pushing.
In addition, should I update Changes?
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Sp
2011/4/6 :
> Uploading third patch.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/
If it is done, could you push it by yourself before 2.14? I never
know how long exactly to wait before pushing.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadajoz.com
__
Uploading third patch.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1956
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1956: exce
Looks basically good. Could you add this between the first and second
points in LICENSE ?
* It does not apply to ly/articulate.ly, which is only licensed
under the GPL version 3 (not any later versions).
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/5001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
> "Francisco" == Francisco Vila writes:
Francisco> 2011/4/5 Peter Chubb :
>>
>> Hi Francisco, If this is (finally!) going to get in, it'd be
>> worth having somewhat better documentation than it has. You've
>> done a pretty good job of grabbing the stuff I had in my ReadME
>> file, bu
2011/4/5 Peter Chubb :
>
> Hi Francisco,
> If this is (finally!) going to get in, it'd be worth having
> somewhat better documentation than it has. You've done a pretty
> good job of grabbing the stuff I had in my ReadME file, but if this
> is no longer to be a chunk of source code that's
Oh, and another note: Articulate doesn't actually need the
\unfoldRepeats for anything. It's just that for MIDI output you
generally want repeats to be unfolded, and if you do
\unfoldRepeats\articulate it uses less processor time than
\articulate\unfoldRepeats -- on complicated scores with lots o
Hi Francisco,
If this is (finally!) going to get in, it'd be worth having
somewhat better documentation than it has. You've done a pretty
good job of grabbing the stuff I had in my ReadME file, but if this
is no longer to be a chunk of source code that's downloaded
separately, (whe
2011/3/31 :
> New patch coming soon after license update.
This new patch waits for comments. I have a comment: the wording is
awful esp. at last paragraph. I can do it better.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067
Thanks; Peter, please confirm (or deny) that what I say about
\unfoldRepeats is
New patch coming soon after license update.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1690
Documentation/notation/input.i
Looks generally good to me.
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/4277067/diff/1/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode1690
Documentation/notation/input.itely:1690: more
13 matches
Mail list logo
