lilyp...@maltemeyn.de writes:
> On 2019/04/29 20:15:30, lemzwerg wrote:
>> I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
> names, this
>> is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
>
> Hm … that would need new names also for other scripts like \reverseTurn,
> \halfOpen and probab
On 2019/04/29 20:15:30, lemzwerg wrote:
I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
names, this
is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
Hm … that would need new names also for other scripts like \reverseTurn,
\halfOpen and probably many others like \prallMordent, \prall
I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
names, this is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
On 2019/04/29 06:14:40, Malte Meyn wrote:
fix documentation
This time I did a make doc-stage-1 for english and german docs. I hope
that’s enough …
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https:
Hm … Would this apply to the already existing script commands
\shortfermata etc.? Then we would need a convert-ly rule.
Good question. I see arguments for both directions, i.e., whether to
stay with the commands, or to remove them.
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
__
On 2019/02/28 09:41:26, lemzwerg wrote:
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a
new fermata
type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead of a
larger set
of specific macros (wh
On 2019/02/28 09:41:26, lemzwerg wrote:
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a
new fermata
type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead of a
larger set
of specific macros (wh
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a new
fermata type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead
of a larger set of specific macros (which a user could always define by
herself). However
On 2019/02/28 09:21:34, Malte Meyn wrote:
On 2019/02/28 09:15:44, lemzwerg wrote:
> LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata
> (and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates the
type:
>
> \fermata 'short
> \fermata 'veryLong
I’m not
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
On 2019/02/28 09:15:44, lemzwerg wrote:
LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata
(and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates the
type:
\fermata 'short
\fermata 'veryLong
I’m not sure whether that
LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata (and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates
the type:
\fermata 'short
\fermata 'veryLong
\fermata "arbitrary markup stuff"
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
_
11 matches
Mail list logo
