Those are the patches... I'm "developing" on a branch of lilypond on
github, though:
http://github.com/drewm1980/lilypond-an/tree/mark_hanlon/input/musicnotation/
Cheers,
Drew
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Wagner wrote:
>> Tw
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andrew Wagner wrote:
> Two years later, and I still haven't given up on getting Lilypond to
> typeset twinline. I believe I now know enough Metafont to edit
> feta-bolletjes.mf (I believe it's now something like
> feta-noteheads.mf) to add the noteheads we need.
>
Two years later, and I still haven't given up on getting Lilypond to
typeset twinline. I believe I now know enough Metafont to edit
feta-bolletjes.mf (I believe it's now something like
feta-noteheads.mf) to add the noteheads we need.
What other steps do I need to take to make the noteheads usable
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Staff_symbol_referencer::on_staff_line (). Can I junk the redundant
> functions?
yes.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
___
lilypond-use
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 22:15 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2008/8/12 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I would say that the second case should just be false. Unless 'me' is a
> > staff symbol, you should not call Staff_symbol::on_line(me). And if 'me'
> > is a staff symbol, it is not a staff sym
2008/8/12 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would say that the second case should just be false. Unless 'me' is a
> staff symbol, you should not call Staff_symbol::on_line(me). And if 'me'
> is a staff symbol, it is not a staff symbol referencer, so no one should
> be calling Staff_symbol_refere
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 19:49 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2008/8/11 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:03 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> >> It was my idea to have all the real code in the staff-symbol file, and
> >> have staff-symbol-referencer just be a wrapper, ie.
> >
2008/8/11 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:03 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> It was my idea to have all the real code in the staff-symbol file, and
>> have staff-symbol-referencer just be a wrapper, ie.
>
> Makes sense to me. We'll end up with a smaller patch this way,
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 21:03 -0300, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> It was my idea to have all the real code in the staff-symbol file, and
> have staff-symbol-referencer just be a wrapper, ie.
Makes sense to me. We'll end up with a smaller patch this way, too.
It was my idea to have all the real code in the staff-symbol file, and
have staff-symbol-referencer just be a wrapper, ie.
Staff_symbol_referencer::on_line(Grob *me, x)
{
Grob *st = staff_symbol(me);
return Staff_symbol::on_line(st, x)
}
(with an intelligent default if st == NULL)
On
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 23:19 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2008/8/10 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Ah, sorry, I evidently hadn't read your last email completely. The patch
> > you sent on the 7th looks pretty much OK to me. My only concern is that
> > you use real numbers instead of ints in
2008/8/10 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ah, sorry, I evidently hadn't read your last email completely. The patch
> you sent on the 7th looks pretty much OK to me. My only concern is that
> you use real numbers instead of ints in line-positions; do we really
> support that? If we do, it seems t
Neil Puttock wrote:
2008/8/10 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think Han-Wen's point is that the first argument to
Staff_symbol::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should always be a staff
symbol (whereas the first argument to
Staff_symbol_referencer::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should be a staff
s
2008/8/10 Joe Neeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think Han-Wen's point is that the first argument to
> Staff_symbol::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should always be a staff
> symbol (whereas the first argument to
> Staff_symbol_referencer::some_function(Grob *me, ...) should be a staff
> symbol referen
On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 01:06 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2008/8/9 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > This does not make sense to me at all. line-positions is a property
> > of the staff symbol, as is line-count. If someone is calling
> >
> > Staff_symbol::on_line(x, y)
> >
> > where x is
2008/8/9 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This does not make sense to me at all. line-positions is a property
> of the staff symbol, as is line-count. If someone is calling
>
> Staff_symbol::on_line(x, y)
>
> where x is not in fact the staff-symbol, then that is an error in the caller.
I
This does not make sense to me at all. line-positions is a property
of the staff symbol, as is line-count. If someone is calling
Staff_symbol::on_line(x, y)
where x is not in fact the staff-symbol, then that is an error in the caller.
On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 6:39 PM, Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROT
2008/7/27 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't understand the original code. 'me' should already be the
> staff-symbol
That's only true for Staff_symbol_referencer::on_line () before the patch.
The revised version, Staff_symbol::on_line (), deals with two separate
cases, i.e., standar
-{
- Grob *st = Staff_symbol_referencer::get_staff_symbol (me);
- SCM line_positions = st->get_property ("line-positions");
+{
+ Grob *st = 0;
+ SCM line_positions = me->get_property ("line-positions");
+ if ((st = Staff_symbol_referencer::get_staff_symbol (me)))
+line_positions = st->get_
Han-Wen,
The leger line fix (4146a0e0549c424bc129fc985733a36801a6e6a2) turned
out to have a basic flaw in that it messed up dot and tie positions
for standard staves. I pushed a fix for this
(b5ba6d4fdb551ebd0dd55140696f4a7e19e82fdb), but my coding has turned
out to be a bit iffy, since it causes
2008/7/6 Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Patches look good to me. Just a minor note, I think we generally use
> a different constant - HUGE_VAL - rather than SCM_MAXFLT.
Yes, I thought that looked a bit out of place (but I wasn't sure what
to replace it with); I'll amend the patch before
Patches look good to me. Just a minor note, I think we generally use
a different constant - HUGE_VAL - rather than SCM_MAXFLT.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Neil Puttock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's a good thing you've brought this up, since that post from Kevin
> and another he posted a
2008/7/5 V!ctor Adán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Neil,
>
> Wow! This is fantastic!! I'm speechless. :-). Thanks to Kevin Dalley too for
> the original patch.
> So is it safe to assume that these changes will be available in version
> 2.11.51?
They certainly stand a good chance of being included, I t
Hi Neil,
Wow! This is fantastic!! I'm speechless. :-). Thanks to Kevin Dalley too for
the original patch.
So is it safe to assume that these changes will be available in version
2.11.51?
Your very truly grateful (and happy) Lilypond user,
Victor.
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 5:17 PM, Neil Puttock <[
Hi Victor,
2008/7/2 V!ctor Adán <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm using Staff contexts with the "line-positions" property modified to fit
> my capricious needs.
> In doing so I'm running into 2 problems (please see attached png):
>
> 1. When I set lines to odd numbers, the duration dots of
25 matches
Mail list logo
