Issue 3830: Document \offset command (issue 319150043 by david.nales...@gmail.com)
Reviewers: , Message: Please review. Thanks! Description: Issue 3830: Document \offset command Please review this at https://codereview.appspot.com/319150043/ Affected files (+142, -0 lines): M Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Structuring website page
Hi, I'm drafting a new section on our GSoC page goving more information for achieving a mutually satisfying project. I'd add that to the bottom of the page, after the project ideas. However, the page isn't properly structured, and while it's acceptable in the current incarnation it becomes unwieldy with my addition. What would be the best way to add some hierarchy to the page? The most natural way would be to wrap the project ideas in an itemize environment but this would too much limit the formatting options fofceach project, I'd say. Any suggestions? Urs -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet. ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:33 AM, David Nalesnik wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> David Nalesnik writes: >> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James wrote: Hello, David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. >>> >>> I didn't forget. I didn't think it was necessary: >>> >>> The snippet I recently corrected >>> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in >>> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new. So makelsr >>> hadn't been run. >> >> That does not even make sense. The whole purpose of the makelsr >> procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from >> Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built. > > What I don't understand is how the merge of the original commit should > have succeeded when there was no checkin of the results of a makelsr > on the using-marklines-... snippet. > Well, I see that the original commit includes no documentation reference to the new snippet, so I suppose I can answer my question. DN ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > David Nalesnik writes: > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a >>> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. >>> >>> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have >>> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. >>> >> >> I didn't forget. I didn't think it was necessary: >> >> The snippet I recently corrected >> (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in >> Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new. So makelsr >> hadn't been run. > > That does not even make sense. The whole purpose of the makelsr > procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from > Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built. What I don't understand is how the merge of the original commit should have succeeded when there was no checkin of the results of a makelsr on the using-marklines-... snippet. > >> - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge >> to fail as well. >> >> I simply don't understand. > > I'll take a look at what's left to do. > I appreciate this. Thanks, DN ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
David Nalesnik writes: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James wrote: >> Hello, >> >> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a >> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. >> >> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have >> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. >> > > I didn't forget. I didn't think it was necessary: > > The snippet I recently corrected > (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in > Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new. So makelsr > hadn't been run. That does not even make sense. The whole purpose of the makelsr procedure is to copy Documentation/snippets/new over the material from Documentation/snippets where the documentation will get built. > - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge > to fail as well. > > I simply don't understand. I'll take a look at what's left to do. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:59 AM, David Nalesnik wrote: > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James wrote: >> Hello, >> >> David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a >> separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. >> >> Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have >> time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. >> > > I didn't forget. I didn't think it was necessary: > > The snippet I recently corrected > (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in > Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new. So makelsr > hadn't been run. > - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge > to fail as well. Because make doc would fail. > > I simply don't understand. > > David ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 7:45 AM, James wrote: > Hello, > > David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a > separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. > > Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have > time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. > I didn't forget. I didn't think it was necessary: The snippet I recently corrected (https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5030/) was never in Documentation/snippets/ just Documentation/snippets/new. So makelsr hadn't been run. - Running makelsr on that (original) snippet should have caused merge to fail as well. I simply don't understand. David ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Can someone run makelsr on staging please?
Hello, David Nalesnik checked in a commit with a new snippet but forgot to push a separate makelsr checkin to go with it so merge fails. Could someone do that as I currently at work today (lucky me) and won't have time to do it myself for at least another 3 or 4 hours. Thanks. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: C++ question:
Knut Petersen writes: >> // A markup property whiteout-markup-wzd is implemented. >> // The following definition is used for that property: >> // \markup { \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) { >> // \filled-box #'(0.0 . 1.0) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.0 } } >> SCM properties = Font_interface::text_font_alist_chain (me); >> SCM ws_zd_mod = Text_interface::interpret_markup ( >> me->layout ()->self_scm (), >> properties, >> me->get_property ("whiteout-markup-wzd")); >> Stencil wsa = *unsmob (ws_zd_mod); >> > >> // The following three lines should give an equivalent definition: >> Box wb (Interval (0.0, 1.0), Interval (-0.5, 0.5)); >> Stencil wsb (Lookup::round_filled_box (wb, 0)); >> wsb.set_empty(false); > > The difference between Stencil wsa and wsb is that \markup { \withdimensions > #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) ...} > not only sets the dimensions : > > (define-markup-command (with-dimensions layout props x y arg) > (number-pair? number-pair? markup?) > #:category other > " > @cindex setting extent of text objects > > Set the dimensions of @var{arg} to @var{x} and@tie{}@var{y}." > (let* ((expr (ly:stencil-expr (interpret-markup layout props arg > (ly:stencil-add > (make-transparent-box-stencil x y) > (ly:make-stencil > `(delay-stencil-evaluation ,(delay expr)) > x y I think that is half of a red herring: apparently the delayed stencil evaluation is only used in order to sneak the stencil outline past the outline tracing code in lily/stencil-integral.cc. And that apparently causes the dimensions to be totally ignored, so a transparent box is pasted on top. What a steaming heap of something. So your code would likely have worked in LilyPond 2.16. I think it would make sense to create a new type of stencil expression explicitly intended to bypass outlining. Probably by just containing _two_ stencils: one for typesetting, one for outlining. That would make for a much more transparent manner of programming things like that. -- David Kastrup ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: C++ question:
// A markup property whiteout-markup-wzd is implemented. // The following definition is used for that property: // \markup { \with-dimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) { // \filled-box #'(0.0 . 1.0) #'(-0.5 . 0.5) #0.0 } } SCM properties = Font_interface::text_font_alist_chain (me); SCM ws_zd_mod = Text_interface::interpret_markup ( me->layout ()->self_scm (), properties, me->get_property ("whiteout-markup-wzd")); Stencil wsa = *unsmob (ws_zd_mod); // The following three lines should give an equivalent definition: Box wb (Interval (0.0, 1.0), Interval (-0.5, 0.5)); Stencil wsb (Lookup::round_filled_box (wb, 0)); wsb.set_empty(false); The difference between Stencil wsa and wsb is that \markup { \withdimensions #'(0 . 0) #'(0 . 0) ...} not only sets the dimensions : (define-markup-command (with-dimensions layout props x y arg) (number-pair? number-pair? markup?) #:category other " @cindex setting extent of text objects Set the dimensions of @var{arg} to @var{x} and@tie{}@var{y}." (let* ((expr (ly:stencil-expr (interpret-markup layout props arg (ly:stencil-add (make-transparent-box-stencil x y) (ly:make-stencil `(delay-stencil-evaluation ,(delay expr)) x y Knut ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel