Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-04-09 Thread tdanielsmusic
Pushed as two commits, one to revert the earlier fix: 76490755dae238028e919653057f231b25be3445 and one to apply the new fix 2aa1d6f450a7f051aa4b0ddcaf89593f7ff23a60 http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-04-07 Thread percival . music . ca
ok, deadline definitely passed. Please push. http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-04-01 Thread lilypond . patches
Patch listed. http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-04-01 Thread percival . music . ca
LGTM, I can confirm the clean regtests. http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-31 Thread tdanielsmusic
Patch set 3 follows up on Neil's suggestion to use the kill-zero-spanned-time callback. This patch removes the changes in Patch set 1 (which was pushed) and implements this alternative fix. This is both simpler and permits the behaviour to be changed with an override. Regtests run clean. @Neil

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-29 Thread n . puttock
On 2011/03/28 22:44:55, t.daniels_treda.co.uk wrote: > http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/diff/1/lily/lyric-hyphen.cc#newcode46 > lily/lyric-hyphen.cc:46: if (Paper_column::when_mom > (bounds[LEFT]->get_column ()).grace_part () != Rational (0) > I think you could fold this into the existing

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-28 Thread Trevor Daniels
n.putt...@gmail.com wrote Monday, March 28, 2011 9:17 PM I hope you don't mind the following late comments. :) Not at all; I pushed it earlier than I should anyway. Thanks! http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/diff/1/input/regression/lyric-hyphen-grace.ly#newcode15 input/regression/lyric-

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-28 Thread n . puttock
Hi Trevor, I hope you don't mind the following late comments. :) Cheers, Neil http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/diff/1/input/regression/lyric-hyphen-grace.ly File input/regression/lyric-hyphen-grace.ly (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/diff/1/input/regression/lyric-hyphen-gra

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-28 Thread tdanielsmusic
Pushed. 2fb262fb403b75907bdebbaf7fbb819733bf6355 http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-28 Thread percival . music . ca
Time for complaints is over; please push. http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-26 Thread percival . music . ca
LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/4313047/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Suppress continuing LyricHyphen under grace note at start of line (issue4313047)

2011-03-24 Thread tdanielsmusic
Reviewers: , Message: This is a suggested fix for issue 688: http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=688 Reg tests look OK. The output shown by the regression test looks right to me, and the simple example in issue 688 is certainly fixed. But I'm unsure whether this is the desired out