Mark,
Too long, but hard to say what will be useful without getting away for a
while. Looks good to me, whether you either take or leave my
suggestions.
http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely
File Documentation/notation/spacing.itely (right):
http
Hi Ian,
Just about there... Three lines with whitespace issues, and then
everything should be ready to go.
Thanks,
Patrick
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/20001/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm
File scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/20
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/15001/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm
File scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/15001/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm#newcode20
scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm:20: (defmacro define-ly-syntax (args .
body)
On 20
Am Donnerstag, 4. November 2010, um 21:56:24 schrieb Valentin Villenave:
> > 2) Agree that an OSS project can, in theory, have a private
> > mailing list. And apologize.
>
> *sigh* I do apologize if you felt offended (which you obviously do).
> However, I can assure you that my goal is not to mak
Greetings Ian,
your patch looks very clever to me; just a possible indentation issue
(I'm not sure what our policy is, but IIRC it used to be "whatever Emacs
does").
BTW: This is totally unrelated to your patch, but I was recently
wondering about this TODO in music-functions-init.ly, l32:
"%% TOD
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I spent 5 minutes trying to post my latest reply, but the forum
> software continually complained that I had used wrong words, tags,
> or symbols, and thus it rejected my comment as spam. I am posting
> my reply here instead.
I am not sure
Patchset 4 uploaded
partial restored to status as after T372 fix.
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
>
> Bug squad: Phil is busy with the opening of a musical, so it would be
> nice if somebody else could check the regression test comparisons for
> both 2.13.37 and 2.13.38. It would be a shame if some horrible bug
> was introduced in the pa
Hi Ian,
I found a rebasing issue that should be sorted out, as explained in my
comment below.
Also, I think the subject line of this patch can be improved, since
we're no longer removing `define-ly-syntax', just revising it.
Thanks,
Patrick
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/7001/scm/
This email is a follow-up to comments in:
http://news.lilynet.net/The-LilyPond-Report-22
I spent 5 minutes trying to post my latest reply, but the forum
software continually complained that I had used wrong words, tags,
or symbols, and thus it rejected my comment as spam. I am posting
my reply he
http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely
File Documentation/notation/spacing.itely (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/diff/14001/Documentation/notation/spacing.itely#newcode256
Documentation/notation/spacing.itely:256: a system is the midd
LGTM.
Thanks, Mark.
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/2642043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 03/11/2010 21:20, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
My reply was really aimed at other lilypond developers -- I wanted
to discourage developers from taking it seriously and wasting half
an hour helpfully describing stuff in an email to such a student.
I think it should up to those developers to decid
Hello
On 03/11/2010 20:35, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
When faced with silly questions like these, I just ignore them. It
costs me even less of my time than answering RTFM.
And it probably took you as much time to read the thread, process it and
then type an email telling us you just ignore these
Comments actioned and tested with LilyPond using Guile V1.8.7 and
V1.9.13.
Ian
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/1/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm
File scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm (left):
http://codereview.appspot.com/2313044/diff/1/scm/ly-syntax-constructors.scm#oldcode20
scm/ly-sy
Valentin Villenave wrote Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:10 AM
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>>> Renaming proposals, round 3:
>>>
>>> CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAMETD's PREFERENCE
>>> ----
>>> next-sta
I've limited my comments to just one :) I think we need to push this
now and move on - we still have to change all the names, and a further
review of the wording after that might suggest a few more tweaks. I'm
sure more clarification will be necessary after users try to understand
and use this,
Am 04.11.2010 00:03, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 11/3/10 9:34 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Am 03.11.2010 15:11, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 11/3/10 7:03 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Hello list, hello Valentin (I think you are the master of the tracker),
Federico Bruni raised this i
Hi Mark,
It's the first time I read your NR4 patches, so I may certainly have
missed a few things.
Your patch looks good, but I was a bit surprised by the overall writing
style of NR4.
This chapter looks odd to me, and somehow not on par NR1 and 2. It's
obviously a whole chapter that hasn't been
Am 03.11.2010 20:33, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 11/3/10 10:15 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Am 03.11.2010 15:10, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
On 11/3/10 6:50 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Am 02.11.2010 04:04, schrieb carl.d.soren...@gmail.com:
Updated to only acknowledge tab-
Am 03.11.2010 21:22, schrieb Neil Puttock:
On 3 November 2010 19:33, Carl Sorensen wrote:
But the tie callback *should* make the notehead transparent if there's no
slur or gliss (or bend, in the future). In the absence of slur, gliss, or
split tie the notehead is transparent. In the pres
2010/11/4 Valentin Villenave
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> >> Renaming proposals, round 3:
> >>
> >> CURRENT NAME PROPOSED NAME TD's PREFERENCE
> >> - ---
> >> next-staff staff-staff
> >> d
22 matches
Mail list logo
