On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 06:20:34PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>
> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
Thanks added as
http://code.google.com/p/l
Neil Puttock writes:
> On 22 March 2011 17:20, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> This.
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>>
>> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
>> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
>
> I'm afraid I c
On 22 March 2011 17:20, David Kastrup wrote:
> This.
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4311041>
>
> Please improve/discuss. This looks totally insane but does not actually
> change the existing absurd realities for single-digit unsigned numbers.
I'm afraid I can't even get as far as running `ma
On 3/22/11 11:20 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
>>
>> I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
>> a DIGIT. I see that DIG
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
>
> I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
> a DIGIT. I see that DIGIT was added in release/0.1.49, back in
> 1998-03-17, as
Graham Percival writes:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
>> David Kastrup writes:
>>
>> > Here is one example where -3 and -13 do totally different things:
>> >
>> >
>> > =-3
>> > =-13
>> > #(display )
>> > #(display )
>>
>> Incidentally: does an
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 03:00:41PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Kastrup writes:
>
> > Here is one example where -3 and -13 do totally different things:
> >
> >
> > =-3
> > =-13
> > #(display )
> > #(display )
>
> Incidentally: does anybody have a reasonable idea how we wan
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:48:21PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> Perhaps i'll aim for obliterating DIGIT altogether.
I certainly can't think of any case in which we actually need/want
a DIGIT. I see that DIGIT was added in release/0.1.49, back in
1998-03-17, as part of the initial version of lexe
David Kastrup writes:
> Here is one example where -3 and -13 do totally different things:
>
>
> =-3
> =-13
> #(display )
> #(display )
Incidentally: does anybody have a reasonable idea how we want to get
around this?
Currently it would appear impossible to assign one-digit negat
David Kastrup writes:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a
>>> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately? _If_ there is
>>> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart from the c
Graham Percival writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a
>> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately? _If_ there is
>> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart from the current situation,
>> >button ac
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 11:00:27PM +, James Lowe wrote:
> Hello,
>
> -Original Message-
> >Stupid question: since I can see no use for following a fingering with a
> >digit, why don't we just change the parser appropriately? _If_ there is
> >some use for numbers greater than 10 (apart
Hello,
-Original Message-
From: David Kastrup
Organization: Organization?!?
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 23:47:41 +0100
To: Lilypond Dev
Subject: Re: PATCH - DOC: Added @knownissue to NR for fingering
>James Lowe writes:
>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/4248081/
>
James Lowe writes:
> http://codereview.appspot.com/4248081/
>
> Doc: Added @knownissue to NR for fingering
>
> By default double-digit fingering (i.e. >9) is not possible using
> normal fingering markups. There is an LSR that has been posted for approval
> at the time of this patch, and will be i
http://codereview.appspot.com/4248081/
Doc: Added @knownissue to NR for fingering
By default double-digit fingering (i.e. >9) is not possible using
normal fingering markups. There is an LSR that has been posted for approval
at the time of this patch, and will be included in the snippet link in th
15 matches
Mail list logo
