Re: LM chapter 4 inaccuracies [WAS: LM 4.2.1: standard settings oflayout objects are in alphabetic order]

2012-09-02 Thread Trevor Daniels
Federico Bruni wrote Sunday, September 02, 2012 6:01 PM > There's an inconsistency, as it's first stated that -1 causes the text > to be left-aligned, then that values less than -1 moves the text even > further to the right. These are not inconsistent. Remember we are moving an extended object

Re: LM chapter 4 inaccuracies [WAS: LM 4.2.1: standard settings oflayout objects are in alphabetic order]

2012-09-03 Thread Colin Hall
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 07:02:25PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote: > Federico Bruni wrote Sunday, September 02, 2012 6:01 PM > > > There's an inconsistency, as it's first stated that -1 causes the text > > to be left-aligned, then that values less than -1 moves the text even > > further to the righ

Re: LM chapter 4 inaccuracies [WAS: LM 4.2.1: standard settings oflayout objects are in alphabetic order]

2012-09-08 Thread Trevor Daniels
Federico Bruni wrote Saturday, September 08, 2012 7:45 AM > I'm reviewing my translation and I found a sentence which doesn't sound > good to me: > > LM 4.1.3 > > "As we shall see shortly, the properties of different types of object > are modified by different commands, so it is useful to be

Re: LM chapter 4 inaccuracies [WAS: LM 4.2.1: standard settings oflayout objects are in alphabetic order]

2012-09-08 Thread Federico Bruni
Il 08/09/2012 17:54, Trevor Daniels ha scritto: If not, please add it to issue 2791. Yes please. done I see that James has already uploaded a patch ___ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypo