On 2/10/06, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do we have \context and \new ? I know that \context lets you name
> a context and \new doesn't... but is that the only difference? ...
> actually, you can use \context to do fancy stuff with already-existing
> contexts, right?
>
> Could
Don Blaheta wrote:
Quoth Mats Bengtsson:
It wouldn't make sense to let a user specify a context name
with \new, since then there is no longer any guarantee that
the context really is new, right? Also, if you want to name a
context, then you should use \context.
Would it make sense to permit
> > . The horizontal dimension of parentheses are not taken into
> > account, making lilypond shift the sharp to the left. This
> > makes it quite difficult to notice the parentheses at all.
>
> I know. This is a difficult problem, in that it is not clear when
> to include the dimension of t
Quoth Mats Bengtsson:
> It wouldn't make sense to let a user specify a context name
> with \new, since then there is no longer any guarantee that
> the context really is new, right? Also, if you want to name a
> context, then you should use \context.
Would it make sense to permit \new Foo = "bar",
By the way, is it possible/easy to get brackets instead of
parentheses?
/Mats
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
The new feature regarding parenthesizing as presented in NEWS.html
(2006-02-10, 8AM) exhibits two bugs.
. The vertical dimension of parentheses is apparently not
The difference is that \new internally generates a unique new
name to the context, thus making sure that you really get a new
context. If you use \context, then you must make up a new unique
name yourself, if you want to get a new context and not just
another invocation of some existing context.
Why do we have \context and \new ? I know that \context lets you name
a context and \new doesn't... but is that the only difference? ...
actually, you can use \context to do fancy stuff with already-existing
contexts, right?
Could we change \new so that it can also name a new context? I'm
On 8-Feb-06, at 8:05 PM, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
Quoting Mats Bengtsson:
I think that it's fine to have { c } as an easy-to-use syntax.
However,
somewhere in the documentation it ought to mention what { c } will
expand to, when the defaults are put in.
That's what the new docs do. It's al
Hi,I suspect that a recent change in GNUmakefile.in (revision 1.186, see attached patch, extracted from CVS) has something to do with this:bash $ ls out/share/lilypond currentbash $ ls out/share/lilypond/current
2.7.33 elisp lilypond-force mf python
Joe Neeman wrote:
I don't understand; how do you use line breaking in the page-breaker?
Within the current architecture, the vertical formatting step is non
reversible, so you can't really figure out the height of one
line-break configuration (which requires vertical formatting), and
then tr
Werner LEMBERG wrote:
The new feature regarding parenthesizing as presented in NEWS.html
(2006-02-10, 8AM) exhibits two bugs.
. The vertical dimension of parentheses is apparently not included
in the calculation of the whole vertical size. In the image, the
lower part of the parenthes
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> I expect that a full optimal page layout module is still far away, but
> we could roll out constrained line breaking relatively easily.
This is great. It is also a good step towards optimal page layout, it
would exciting to what an Guess_allow_pagebreak_engraver could
12 matches
Mail list logo
