LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata (and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates
the type:
\fermata 'short
\fermata 'veryLong
\fermata "arbitrary markup stuff"
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
_
On 2019/04/29 06:14:40, Malte Meyn wrote:
fix documentation
This time I did a make doc-stage-1 for english and german docs. I hope
that’s enough …
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https:
I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
names, this is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listin
On 2019/04/29 20:15:30, lemzwerg wrote:
I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
names, this
is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
Hm … that would need new names also for other scripts like \reverseTurn,
\halfOpen and probably many others like \prallMordent, \prall
lilyp...@maltemeyn.de writes:
> On 2019/04/29 20:15:30, lemzwerg wrote:
>> I wonder whether it makes sense to use more camel case for the macro
> names, this
>> is, \shortFermata, \longFermata, etc.
>
> Hm … that would need new names also for other scripts like \reverseTurn,
> \halfOpen and probab
Reviewers: lemzwerg,
Message:
On 2019/02/28 09:15:44, lemzwerg wrote:
LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata
(and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates the
type:
\fermata 'short
\fermata 'veryLong
I’m not sure whether that
On 2019/02/28 09:21:34, Malte Meyn wrote:
On 2019/02/28 09:15:44, lemzwerg wrote:
> LGTM. However, I'm not completely happy with it. What about making
\fermata
> (and \fermataMarkup) accept an optional argument that indicates the
type:
>
> \fermata 'short
> \fermata 'veryLong
I’m not
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a new
fermata type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead
of a larger set of specific macros (which a user could always define by
herself). However
On 2019/02/28 09:41:26, lemzwerg wrote:
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a
new fermata
type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead of a
larger set
of specific macros (wh
On 2019/02/28 09:41:26, lemzwerg wrote:
[Oops, pressed the wrong button]
The idea of
\fermata 'foo
is its open endedness; you don't have to define a new command for a
new fermata
type. I'm a fan of a smaller set of multiplex commands instead of a
larger set
of specific macros (wh
Hm … Would this apply to the already existing script commands
\shortfermata etc.? Then we would need a convert-ly rule.
Good question. I see arguments for both directions, i.e., whether to
stay with the commands, or to remove them.
https://codereview.appspot.com/344160043/
__
11 matches
Mail list logo