While I don't have any technical contribution and I don't want to stop
useful functionality but I notice that the command contains the phrase
'never embed' but the description says that it *does* embed fonts after
all.
Also, the Tracker description contains much more information in it
descriptive
While I don't have any technical contribution and I don't want to stop
useful
functionality but I notice that the command contains the phrase 'never
embed'
but the description says that it *does* embed fonts after all.
The wording is tricky. TrueType and OpenType fonts are not `normal'
font
> I am happy to help with the documentation if language is a
difficulty to
> describe, but fundamentally what is the purpose of this command and
why, as a
> user, would I want to use (and perhaps not to use it?).
I leave a detailed answer to Masamichi-san :-)
This option is very useful wh
On 2016/10/29 17:18:21, trueroad wrote:
Finally, if the small PDF files contain some fonts that are not
embedded (by
this option `-dgs-neverembed-fonts`), the TeX system outputs the main
PDF file
with some fonts missing.
In this case, Ghostscript can embed the necessary fonts.
It can signifi
Is there any notion (or the potential for a notion) of unit testing in
LilyPond's development process?
Urs
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://l
On 10/29/16 11:34 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Urs Liska"
wrote:
>Is there any notion (or the potential for a notion) of unit testing in
>LilyPond's development process?
I think that the regression tests is the closest we get to unit testing.
make test-baseline
make test
Thanks,
Carl
Am 29. Oktober 2016 12:06:20 GMT-07:00, schrieb Carl Sorensen
:
>
>
>On 10/29/16 11:34 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Urs Liska"
>u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
>
>>Is there any notion (or the potential for a notion) of unit testing in
>>LilyPond's development process?
>
>I think that the regres
On Sat, 29 Oct 2016 at 20:32 Urs Liska wrote:
>
> That's what I thought, and that's of course a good thing. But would it be
> conceivable to actually start doing unit tests? One should probably not be
> frightened by the issue that we won't be able to apply that backwardly, to
> the existing code
