Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2015/11/13 21:51:19, dak wrote:

Sorry for yet finding more stuff that, after all, could likely be

improved.  At

least I did so pretty quickly this time.



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm

File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/define-markup-commands.scm#newcode623

scm/define-markup-commands.scm:623: (direction DOWN)
Should this markup command be called "undertie" or should it rather be

"tie",

with "undertie" explicitly overriding `direction'?



Because the rather explicit name '\undertie' seems a bit inconsistent

with the

behavior of



{
   c'1^\markup \undertie hm
}



where the direction is determined by the direction specified for the

TextScript.

Changed property direction to text-direction, which is in use already.
Now under/overtie should be robust against direction-modifiers



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm
File scm/stencil.scm (right):



https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm#newcode86

scm/stencil.scm:86: (interval-index '(0 . 1) offset-index))
This is just (+ 0.1 (* 0.3 angularity)) I think and right-control

would then be

(- 1 left-control).


Done.


https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: Implement make-bow-stencil, make-tie-stencil for use in markup-commands undertie and overtie (issue 270640043 by thomasmorle...@gmail.com)

[thomasmorley65]

On 2015/11/13 23:15:22, thomasmorley651 wrote:

On 2015/11/13 23:01:39, dak wrote:
> Aaand another one.
>
> https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm
> File scm/stencil.scm (right):
>
>

https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/diff/60001/scm/stencil.scm#newcode66

> scm/stencil.scm:66: (if (equal? start stop)
> I think that's too optimistic.  If you have
> start = (0 . 0)
> and
> stop = (1e-200 . 1e-200)
> then your length calculation will still throw out 0.



Good catch, again



> I'd recommend doing this
> "foolproof" by starting with the length calculation and going for

the empty

> stencil exactly when the length is zero (since exactly then dividing

by it is

a
> bad idea).
>
> That would make this foolproof.  Yes, the additional indentation

level is a

> nuisance.
>
> One can additionally increase precision by letting
> (length-to-print (magnitude (make-rectangular dx dy)))
> which turns out to still work when dx and dy are 1e-200 and similar

(meaning

> that their square would underflow precision at least on my

computer).


Will do.


Done.


https://codereview.appspot.com/270640043/

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

New Dutch PO file for 'lilypond' (version 2.19.26)

[Translation Project Robot]

Hello, gentle maintainer.

This is a message from the Translation Project robot.

A revised PO file for textual domain 'lilypond' has been submitted
by the Dutch team of translators.  The file is available at:

http://translationproject.org/latest/lilypond/nl.po

(We can arrange things so that in the future such files are automatically
e-mailed to you when they arrive.  Ask at the address below if you want this.)

All other PO files for your package are available in:

http://translationproject.org/latest/lilypond/

Please consider including all of these in your next release, whether
official or a pretest.

Whenever you have a new distribution with a new version number ready,
containing a newer POT file, please send the URL of that distribution
tarball to the address below.  The tarball may be just a pretest or a
snapshot, it does not even have to compile.  It is just used by the
translators when they need some extra translation context.

The following HTML page has been updated:

http://translationproject.org/domain/lilypond.html

If any question arises, please contact the translation coordinator.

Thank you for all your work,

The Translation Project robot, in the
name of your translation coordinator.



___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: plan for 2.20 release?

[Simon Albrecht]

On 14.11.2015 14:40, Federico Bruni wrote:

Hi

There's any plan for the next stable release?


Good question. It’s odd to keep telling people on -user how they should 
upgrade to an unstable version, which some don’t dare do, although it’s 
actually quite stable.


I'm asking out of curiosity and also because I'd like to add some more 
translations in the next month.


I see a long list of new features and only (?) 3 regressions:
https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/search/?q=%28_type%3ACritical+OR+labels%3ARegression%29+AND+%28status%3ANew+OR+status%3AAccepted+OR+status%3AStarted%29 



4316: I’ve reconsidered and don’t think it’s a regression, and 
definitely not one to block a stable release.
4182: Yes, that is a regression, though it’s not _particularly_ nasty, 
but it shouldn’t be in a really stable release.
3778: This has been a regression against 2.16, but the CG (8.3, Issue 
classification) says regressions against the ‘current and previous’ 
stable versions should be tagged ‘regression’.


Yours, Simon

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: [feature-request] optional duration for temporary

[Kieren MacMillan]

Hi James,

> I have opened
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4658/

Thanks. (I’m getting a 404 error at the moment, but I assume that’s temporary.)

Cheers,
Kieren.


Kieren MacMillan, composer
‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info
‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info


___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

Re: plan for 2.20 release?

[David Kastrup]

Federico Bruni  writes:

> Hi
>
> There's any plan for the next stable release?
> I'm asking out of curiosity and also because I'd like to add some more
> translations in the next month.
>
> I see a long list of new features and only (?) 3 regressions:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/search/?q=%28_type%3ACritical+OR+labels%3ARegression%29+AND+%28status%3ANew+OR+status%3AAccepted+OR+status%3AStarted%29
>
> Nasty regressions?

Well, we don't have Guile-2 supported.  It's likely that remaining
issues with the Guile-2 support can be cherry-picked into the 2.20
series but at least right now I don't see 2.20.0 having reliable (or
even baseline workable) Guile-2 support.  But I guess there's little
point in waiting for active work to resume magically by itself.  It's a
whole bunch of "seomebody else's problem" at the current point of time.

-- 
David Kastrup

___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel