le in the proposed form but that does not mean
> > we should ignore it.
>
> Forwarded to bug-lilypond. Bug Squad, please look at "A documentation
> suggestion, was: Problem with remove bar number/ why I'm not upgrading
> to the new stable version" thread on -user.
d ignore it.
Forwarded to bug-lilypond. Bug Squad, please look at "A documentation
suggestion, was: Problem with remove bar number/ why I'm not upgrading
to the new stable version" thread on -user.
Janek
___
lilypond-user mailing list
li
Janek Warchoł writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM, james wrote:
>>> Perhaps there is a much simpler solution. Notation reference, 1.3.1
>>> is where I got the example which I have been using since at least
>>> 2.12, because centering such a new dynamic is probably rarer than
>>> having it
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Kevin Patrick Barry wrote:
> Dear LilyPond users,
>
> I have found the recent debate about the difficulty of using LilyPond
> interesting and would like to offer my experience, as someone who has
> been using it for about six months. I apologise if this is a bit
>
+1 for updating documentation.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM, james wrote:
> Perhaps there is a much simpler solution. Notation reference, 1.3.1 is where
> I got the example which I have been using since at least 2.12, because
> centering such a new dynamic is probably rarer than having it l
Am 27.10.2012 14:13, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> Well, as a matter of fact, LilyPond uses Scheme to extend its
>> functionality. This won't change.
It is a very unintuitive language to me. But I fear I have to live with
it, when dealing with LilyPond in a bit more detail.
26.10.2012 00:52, David Kastrup:
> … 2.17.6 will make a lot of #'xxx and #'(xxx yyy) unnecessary.
> … Something like Score.Accidental, previously an
> isolated LilyPond syntax element, now has a straightforward and direct
> correspondence to Scheme data structures.
>
> Being able to map LilyPond s
james writes:
>> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>
>>> So I ask again: What exactly are the difficulties you have
>>> encountered? What concepts are badly explained, what examples are
>>> `greek' to you, and why? Simply skipping the Scheme code and asking
>>> for a non-Scheme solution isn't helpful e
> Werner LEMBERG writes:
>
>> So I ask again: What exactly are the difficulties you have
>> encountered? What concepts are badly explained, what examples are
>> `greek' to you, and why? Simply skipping the Scheme code and asking
>> for a non-Scheme solution isn't helpful either.
Perhaps there
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> LilyPond is supposed to
> be useful without having to extend it.
>
>> In other words, an a-priori refusal of Scheme isn't helpful if you
>> want to explore the capabilities of LilyPond.
>
> If you want to _extend_ them. LilyPond is nowhere n
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:20 AM, james wrote:
[...]
> here's an example
> where the answer to my question was a bit above my level of understanding.
> Granted, the question was a bit above my level of understanding…
>
I'm sorry, but I'm having a difficult time understanding your point.
You aske
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> Maybe examples can be extended and/or reduced to make them easier
>>> to comprehend.
>>
>> It's not the examples in the documentation, or at least, I
>> understand all of the documentation except for the introduction to
>> scheme, which is fine for me, since I don't use
>> Maybe examples can be extended and/or reduced to make them easier
>> to comprehend.
>
> It's not the examples in the documentation, or at least, I
> understand all of the documentation except for the introduction to
> scheme, which is fine for me, since I don't use scheme.
Well, as a matter of
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 12:07 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> At any rate, in LilyPond 2.16 you _can_ write the above as
> rinforzamf =
> #(make-dynamic-script
> #{ \markup \line { \left-align \normal-text \whiteout \italic "rinforza"
> \hspace #0
> \whiteout
james writes:
> On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> It would be very helpful to us if you can find some time to *exactly*
>> point out what background knowledge you are missing.
>
> Knowing what you don't know is always difficult. However, here's an
> example where the answer
On Oct 26, 2012, at 8:15 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> It would be very helpful to us if you can find some time to *exactly*
> point out what background knowledge you are missing.
Knowing what you don't know is always difficult. However, here's an example
where the answer to my question was a bi
Thomas Morley writes:
> I think some intimidation could be present, but how to do it different?
>
> Not answering?
>
> Or (back to the draw-dashed-line) demonstrating how to do it with:
> drawing a small line
> some padding
> drawing a small line with appropriate offset
> some padding
> drawing a
2012/10/26 David Nalesnik :
> Hi James,
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, james wrote:
>
>>
>> My main issue is that when I don't understand how to do something, while
>> there might be a way to do it that I could understand, because the "power
>> users" are the ones that more often than not
Harm,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Thomas Morley
wrote:
[...]
> Hi David (N),
>
> I think the draw-dashed-line-command is worth putting into the source.
> If you agree, I will turn it into a patch the next days.
Unbelievable. You must have sent this when I was writing the same
thing in th
2012/10/26 David Nalesnik :
> David,
>
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> David Nalesnik writes:
>>
>>> However, there are often questions that can't be answered in any way
>>> but to delve into Scheme. As recently, for example, when a question
>>> was posed about using \
David,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> David Nalesnik writes:
>
>> However, there are often questions that can't be answered in any way
>> but to delve into Scheme. As recently, for example, when a question
>> was posed about using \draw-line to make a dashed line instea
David Nalesnik writes:
> However, there are often questions that can't be answered in any way
> but to delve into Scheme. As recently, for example, when a question
> was posed about using \draw-line to make a dashed line instead of a
> solid one. AFAIK, there's no simple way to do it which you
Hi James,
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:08 PM, james wrote:
>
> My main issue is that when I don't understand how to do something, while
> there might be a way to do it that I could understand, because the "power
> users" are the ones that more often than not respond, I'm left with an answer
> th
> I re-read the learning manual when a major stable version is
> released, just to become familiar with any major changes. I know how
> to search the notation reference for the contexts or engravers I
> might want to modify, and what modifications I can make to them,
> because these kinds of chang
On Oct 26, 2012, at 7:11 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> james writes:
>
>> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> …
>>> What you are witnessing on the user list is the
>>> emergence of "power users", a class of users narrowing the gap between
>>> users and core developers. Yes, the
james writes:
> On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
>> …
>> What you are witnessing on the user list is the
>> emergence of "power users", a class of users narrowing the gap between
>> users and core developers. Yes, they juggle with complex material. But
>> that does not mean t
On Oct 25, 2012, at 11:15 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> …
> What you are witnessing on the user list is the
> emergence of "power users", a class of users narrowing the gap between
> users and core developers. Yes, they juggle with complex material. But
> that does not mean that things have actual
Jay,
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Jay Hamilton wrote:
> Janek-
> I'm not going to do that [upgrade to 2.16]. Here's a few reasons why.
> I've been using lilypond since some kind of 1 version. Some of the
> stable versions have been baby steps and easy to accommodate and understand.
> M
2012/10/25 David Kastrup :
> Jay Hamilton writes:
>
>> Janek-
>> I'm not going to do that. Here's a few reasons why.
>
> Well, obviously I am rather partial here, but I quite disagree with your
> assessment here. What you are witnessing on the user list is the
> emergence of "power users", a clas
Eluze writes:
> Am 26.10.2012 00:52, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Thomas Morley writes:
>>
>>> With "2.16.0" you could use:
>>>
>>> \tweak Accidental #'font-size #-2
>> The way it looks, with 2.17.6 you will likely have to write
>>
>> \tweak Accidental.font-size #-2
>>
>> indeed, an incompatible sy
Am 26.10.2012 00:52, schrieb David Kastrup:
Thomas Morley writes:
With "2.16.0" you could use:
\tweak Accidental #'font-size #-2
The way it looks, with 2.17.6 you will likely have to write
\tweak Accidental.font-size #-2
indeed, an incompatible syntax change. convert-ly will cover it,
th
Thomas Morley writes:
> With "2.16.0" you could use:
>
> \tweak Accidental #'font-size #-2
The way it looks, with 2.17.6 you will likely have to write
\tweak Accidental.font-size #-2
indeed, an incompatible syntax change. convert-ly will cover it,
though. 2.17.6 will make a lot of #'xxx and
Hi Jay,
2012/10/25 David Kastrup :
> Jay Hamilton writes:
>
>> Janek-
>> I'm not going to do that. Here's a few reasons why.
>> I've been using lilypond since some kind of 1 version. Some of the
>> stable versions have been baby steps and easy to accommodate and
>> understand. Many many of th
Jay Hamilton writes:
> Janek-
> I'm not going to do that. Here's a few reasons why.
> I've been using lilypond since some kind of 1 version. Some of the
> stable versions have been baby steps and easy to accommodate and
> understand. Many many of the changes that have been taking place in V2
Janek-
I'm not going to do that. Here's a few reasons why.
I've been using lilypond since some kind of 1 version. Some of the
stable versions have been baby steps and easy to accommodate and
understand. Many many of the changes that have been taking place in V2
have not been like that. It t
35 matches
Mail list logo
