https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/diff/544550044/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/diff/544550044/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode246
Documentation/notation/input.itely:246: \paper @{ @dots{} @}
I don't understand these diff lines. Any idea where they are from?
https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/diff/544550044/Documentation/notation/input.itely#newcode3812
Documentation/notation/input.itely:3812: Grace notes are ignored and
simply left unaffected.
What's with tuplets? When following actual practice, most written
tuplets should be rendered exactly. Things get really murky when they
span only part of a usually swung unit.
Of course, I have no idea what swing.ly actually does with them
currently. It should be documented what currently is there and put a
warning when the code does not yet make it do what would likely be
wanted.
https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/diff/544550044/ly/swing.ly
File ly/swing.ly (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/diff/544550044/ly/swing.ly#newcode97
ly/swing.ly:97: #(define (rational-list? lst)
I don't think this does what you think it does. Every number (except
complex one) counts as "rational" in Scheme terms. Including (sin 2.2).
https://codereview.appspot.com/572520044/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
