On 4-Aug-05, at 2:41 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
At the moment, I don't consider bagpipe.ly to be my responsibity, so
you can go cavort about. No guarantees that that won't change if
people start to pay me for bagpipe support.
Ok; file added to CVS. Thanks for all your work on this, Sven.
C
Graham Percival wrote:
On 4-Aug-05, at 1:21 AM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
I don't think we want *any* hidden behaviour -- especially when it's
not needed. What's wrong with using bagpipeHideKeySignature?
ok, it's a bit longer to type; we could figure out a shorter name.
Nothing wrong as such of
On 4-Aug-05, at 1:21 AM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
I don't think we want *any* hidden behaviour -- especially when it's
not needed. What's wrong with using bagpipeHideKeySignature?
ok, it's a bit longer to type; we could figure out a shorter name.
Nothing wrong as such of course. But why should th
From: Graham Percival [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On 3-Aug-05, at 11:44 PM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
>
> Our Fearless Leader will object to this, probably using dire phrases
> like "polluting the global LilyPond namespace" and "creating future
> support nightmares". What happens in six months wh
On 3-Aug-05, at 11:44 PM, Sven Axelsson wrote:
To make lilypond bagpipe stuff easier, I propose that we include these
commands in ly/property-init.ly
Actually doing that would not make the bagpipe stuff easier at all.
*cough* I was politic'ing. (not a real English word :)
I currently ha
> From: Graham Percival [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To make lilypond bagpipe stuff easier, I propose that we include these
> commands in ly/property-init.ly
> Any objections? Should they go in a different file instead?
>
> hideKeySignature = {
>\override Score.KeySignature #'print-functio
To make lilypond bagpipe stuff easier, I propose that we include these
commands in ly/property-init.ly
Any objections? Should they go in a different file instead?
hideKeySignature = {
\override Score.KeySignature #'print-function = ##f
\set Score.extraNatural = ##f
#(set-accidental-style
