On Mar 22, 2011, at 7:35 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:
> On 10 March 2011 10:06, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:17 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Does `annotation-whiteout' do anything special? If not, the existing
>>> property `whiteout' should suffice.
>>>
>>
>> It pu
On Mar 22, 2011, at 11:28 AM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, I agree that we should get rid of the two-pass algorithm. But
> it's really tricky to do it the clean way :o\
>
I will jump on the bandwagon here in saying that I too strongly dislike the
two-pass algorithm, but I disl
On 10 March 2011 10:06, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:17 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Does `annotation-whiteout' do anything special? If not, the existing
>> property `whiteout' should suffice.
>>
>
> It puts a whiteout only around the annotation instead of whiting ou
Of course, I agree that we should get rid of the two-pass algorithm. But
it's really tricky to do it the clean way :o\
As the issues I pointed out need deep changes, I think the two-pass
algorithm is better than nothing.
For the moment, we can also avoid these issues by displaying footnotes
anot
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 11:05:34PM +0100, Reinhold Kainhofer wrote:
> Am Samstag, 19. März 2011, um 17:27:23 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> > Technically I much prefer the 1 pass solution, although it requires
> > constraints on how the marks are formatted (with padding space for
> > small numbers.)
>
Am Samstag, 19. März 2011, um 17:27:23 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> Technically I much prefer the 1 pass solution, although it requires
> constraints on how the marks are formatted (with padding space for
> small numbers.)
But practically as a publisher of critical editions, I not only prefer, but
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:20 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
>> You realize that you may end up in an infinite loop for (rare)
>> degenerate cases, right? If anything, you should stop after the 2nd
>> pass.
>
> Good point - I can make the # of passes in the loop a variable w/ the default
> as 2.
On Mar 19, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
> wrote:
>
>> One way to avoid a two-pass system is to redo the way that top-level markups
>> are stashed in LilyPond. If LilyPond can re-evaluate these markups after
>> page breakin
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 1:07 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> One way to avoid a two-pass system is to redo the way that top-level markups
> are stashed in LilyPond. If LilyPond can re-evaluate these markups after
> page breaking is calculated, it can scan to see if their vertical extent is
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:58 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
> wrote:
>
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
>>> wrote:
The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical objects before it
processes
paginati
On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
>> wrote:
>>> The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical objects before it processes
>>> pagination, making it impossible to know exactly how much space a footnote
>>>
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
> wrote:
>> The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical objects before it processes
>> pagination, making it impossible to know exactly how much space a footnote
>> will take up wh
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical objects before it processes
> pagination, making it impossible to know exactly how much space a footnote
> will take up when the graphical object is processed.
>
> One solution to this
On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:41 AM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:11 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
>
>> On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> There is still a vertical spacing bug in the footnotes :
>>> \markup {
>>> \footnote e e
>>> \footnot
On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:11 PM, m...@apollinemike.com wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> There is still a vertical spacing bug in the footnotes :
>> \markup {
>> \footnote e e
>> \footnote e ef
>> }
>> There should be a fixed distance between the baseline
On Mar 10, 2011, at 12:02 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> There is still a vertical spacing bug in the footnotes :
> \markup {
> \footnote e e
> \footnote e ef
> }
> There should be a fixed distance between the baseline and the number.
>
The problem is that Lilypond processes graphical
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> 10 is the magic threshold for cataclysmic footnote failure. There is
> currently no sure fire way to get LilyPond to anticipate a footnote's
> eventual width and to deal w/ it accordingly.
>
> I don't think this is a prohibitive gotchya, but it is super annoying
There is still a vertical spacing bug in the footnotes :
\markup {
\footnote e e
\footnote e ef
}
There should be a fixed distance between the baseline and the number.
For the thin space, I meant in-text words and numbers :
Cromorne ²
Which is more elegant than :
Cromorne ²
or
Cromorne²
Rega
On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:38 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Nice job, as usual !
>
> However, I noticed some obvious problems. You probably already know
> them.
>
> Here, the padding :
> \markup {
> \footnote b c
> \footnote e f
> }
>
This is kinda sorta fixed.
> Here, the
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:17 PM, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I've only given this a quick look so far, but it's looking great. :)
>
> Here are a few thoughts:
>
> The patch doesn't apply without rebasing `paper-defaults-init.ly'.
Fixed (I think).
>
> Does `annotation-whiteout' do a
On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:14 PM, colinpkcampb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2011/03/09 19:13:20, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
>> Thanks for the helpful comments! Responses inlined below.
>
> Hi, Mike! Part-time patch helper Colin here.
>
> Mike, this patch has somehow poisoned the doc build and also the
On 11-03-09 04:21 PM, James Lowe wrote:
Colin,
-Original Message-
From: Colin Campbell
Reply-To:,,
, Colin Campbell,
Lilypond Dev,
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:14:09 +
To:,,
Cc:, Lilypond Dev
Subject: Re: Adds automatic numbering to footnotes. (issue4244064)
On 2011/03/09 19:13:20
Colin,
-Original Message-
From: Colin Campbell
Reply-To: , ,
, Colin Campbell ,
Lilypond Dev ,
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 21:14:09 +
To: , ,
Cc: , Lilypond Dev
Subject: Re: Adds automatic numbering to footnotes. (issue4244064)
>On 2011/03/09 19:13:20, mike_apollinemike.com wr
Hi Mike,
I've only given this a quick look so far, but it's looking great. :)
Here are a few thoughts:
The patch doesn't apply without rebasing `paper-defaults-init.ly'.
Does `annotation-whiteout' do anything special? If not, the existing
property `whiteout' should suffice.
`reset-footnotes-
On 2011/03/09 19:13:20, mike_apollinemike.com wrote:
Thanks for the helpful comments! Responses inlined below.
Hi, Mike! Part-time patch helper Colin here.
Mike, this patch has somehow poisoned the doc build and also the make
test functionality, neither of which work since the patch was pushe
Thanks for the helpful comments! Responses inlined below.
On Mar 9, 2011, at 6:38 PM, bordage.bertr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> Nice job, as usual !
>
> However, I noticed some obvious problems. You probably already know
> them.
>
> Here, the padding :
> \markup {
> \footnote b c
> \
26 matches
Mail list logo
