On 5/3/10 1:02 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> I don't see that you stand a chance with the standard processes here.
> You don't have commit access. The gold standard here (to the exclusion
> of all other workflows) is a patch review on Rietveld. That basically
> limits feedback to persons with
Carl Sorensen writes:
> On 5/2/10 8:38 PM, "Boris Shingarov" wrote:
>
>> I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more
>> flexible formatting rules.
>
> I've reviewed the patch; the only problems I see are minor indentation and
> formatting issues. I'm surprised, because the
On 3 May 2010 15:04, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> I've reviewed the patch; the only problems I see are minor indentation and
> formatting issues. I'm surprised, because the patch set says it's 2 months
> old, but I can't find any reference to issue 207105 in the -devel or the
> -user archives. So thi
"Boris Shingarov" writes:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 09:02:55 0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "Boris Shingarov" writes:
>> > Markup functions being able to return a list of stencils.
> >
> > Markup lists don't do the trick here?
>
> No; if you look at patch 207105, you'll see what I mean.
>> I
On 5/2/10 8:38 PM, "Boris Shingarov" wrote:
> I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more
> flexible formatting rules. WE are using it for things like multi-line
> embedded scores, mixing them with markup lines, rules about what things
> / combinations of things should not s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Montag, 3. Mai 2010 15:12:56 schrieb Boris Shingarov:
> The real problem here is not of process, but of fundamental
> interests. I am scratching *my* itch, which is, make
> top-publication-grade work possible with Lilypond. Lilypond did not
> reac
On Mon, 03 May 2010 09:02:55 0200, David Kastrup wrote:
"Boris Shingarov" writes:
> Markup functions being able to return a list of stencils.
>
> Markup lists don't do the trick here?
No; if you look at patch 207105, you'll see what I mean.
I don't see that you stand a chance with the
"Boris Shingarov" writes:
> I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more
> flexible formatting rules. WE are using it for things like multi-line
> embedded scores, mixing them with markup lines, rules about what
> things / combinations of things should not start / end a line,
I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more
flexible formatting rules. WE are using it for things like multi-line
embedded scores, mixing them with markup lines, rules about what things
/ combinations of things should not start / end a line, also there are
rules like "no line
Seems like nobody reads this thread anymore, or missed out on the
interesting parts. Quoted without attribution for simplicity.
>> I'd say, a markup-list command signature should follow the pattern:
>>
>> scheme* markup* markup-list*
>>
>> that is, any number of scheme arguments, then any numb
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
> wrote:
>>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>>
>>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>>> marku
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
> wrote:
>>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>>
>>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>>> marku
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Nicolas Sceaux
wrote:
>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>
>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>> markup in the arguments. Anything else?
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 29 avr. 2010 à 20:27, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
>> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>>
>> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
>> markup in the argu
Le 29 avr. 2010 à 20:27, David Kastrup a écrit :
> What type signatures would be actually permissable under the assumption
> that they are supported by lexer and parser?
>
> It is somewhat clear to me that we can't have markup-list followed by
> markup in the arguments. Anything else?
I'd say,
Hi,
I am currently reworking the markup command parsing. We have something
like
The available combinations of arguments (after the standard @var{layout}
and @var{props} arguments) to a markup command defined with
@code{define-markup-command} are limited as follows.
@table @asis
@item (no argum
16 matches
Mail list logo
