Re: GUB: reducing errors/warnings

Op donderdag 25-06-2009 om 00:33 uur [tijdzone -0300], schreef Han-Wen Nienhuys: > Unfortunately, a lot of packages are not meant to be cross-compiled, > so a lot of things that GUB does are hackish. I'd not worry too much > about the messages; as long as things work, there are things much more >

Re: GUB: reducing errors/warnings

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > Has anybody other than Han-Wen and Jan build lilypond with GUB? > And/or does anybody have experience with the regtests?  I'm > running into many problems, and it would be nice if I could work > out issues (and ideally create patches) withou

Re: define-grobs.scm properties not alphabetical

Graham Percival wrote: > I think this is the coolest thing I've ever seen on a lilypond > mailist, and that says a lot. :) Thanks, Graham! Regarding the all-grob-properties alist in define-grobs.scm... I've written a function that will automatically sort the alist (soon after its definition) s

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > I *am* interested in helping with this, but could someone apply my > > final patch on this? > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2009-06/msg00528.html > > > > It's been almost a month since I started with this... > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/li

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

On 6/24/09 10:36 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: (eq? (split-at-predicate odd? '(2 3 6 8 9 0)) '((2) (6 8) (0))) holds. It would be .ly file that runs Scheme function on a set of inputs, and compares them to a set of outputs to make

Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Neil Puttock wrote: > Hi everybody, > > Since the Dynamic_engraver is no longer used due to being replaced > just over a year ago, I'd like to remove it completely. > > Any objections? Was this taken care of? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2008-0

Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?

On 6/24/09 2:33 PM, "Neil Puttock" wrote: > 2009/6/24 Carl D. Sorensen : > >> Shouldn't we do this by eliminating Dynamic_engraver and renaming >> New_dynamic_engraver to Dynamic_engraver? > > I'm not sure, since New_dynamic_engraver doesn't have all the > functionality of Dynamic_engraver (

GUB: reducing errors/warnings

Has anybody other than Han-Wen and Jan build lilypond with GUB? And/or does anybody have experience with the regtests? I'm running into many problems, and it would be nice if I could work out issues (and ideally create patches) without having to pester them all the time. For example, building an

Re: GUB / autoconf out-of-tree builds

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:44:02PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote: > 2009/6/23 Graham Percival : > > > Once I've made one or two "official" 2.13 release, I'm > > quite happy to make 2.12.4 with those building-on-gcc-4.4 fixes. > > If you're thinking of doing this, it would be good to backport other >

Re: fixing MetronomeMark

Not alone ! I asked quite the same question just one month ago. You can read the answers in the archives there : http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-05/msg00521.html Still hoping... Xavier 2009/6/24 Kieren MacMillan > Hi devs! > > The two MetronomeMark behaviours I would li

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:02:36PM +0200, Hans Aberg wrote: > On 24 Jun 2009, at 21:03, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > >> I'm not sure I understand all of your points. With the new changes, >> it is >> possible to define any grouping you want to define within a time >> signature. > > Most important

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On 24 Jun 2009, at 21:03, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: I'm not sure I understand all of your points. With the new changes, it is possible to define any grouping you want to define within a time signature. Thus, if you want to have 2/8 + 3/8 +2 8 = 7/8, it is trivial to get (2 3 2) grouping f

Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?

2009/6/24 Carl D. Sorensen : > Shouldn't we do this by eliminating Dynamic_engraver and renaming > New_dynamic_engraver to Dynamic_engraver? I'm not sure, since New_dynamic_engraver doesn't have all the functionality of Dynamic_engraver (though it would be easy enough to have a convert rule which

Re: GUB / autoconf out-of-tree builds

2009/6/23 Graham Percival : > Once I've made one or two "official" 2.13 release, I'm > quite happy to make 2.12.4 with those building-on-gcc-4.4 fixes. If you're thinking of doing this, it would be good to backport other bugfixes from 2.13. I'll happily volunteer to do this if you think it's a g

Re: Automatic rest splitting?

Neil Puttock wrote: > A Completion_rests_engraver would be the right approach. > > I don't think there's any stumbling block (indeed, you can knock up a > rough and ready version based on Completion_heads_engraver in a few > minutes); it's just waiting for someone to implement it properly, > whic

Re: Automatic rest splitting?

2009/6/21 Mark Polesky : > > 1.2.3 Displaying rhythms (Automatic note splitting) says: > > The Completion_heads_engraver only affects notes; it does not > split rests. > > Is there a stumbling block? How easily could this be changed? I'm > finding myself in situations where splitting rests would co

Re: First release of ly/tablature.ly

On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:53 -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > > http://codereview.appspot.com/67174/diff/1/2#newcode237 > > Line 237: \layout { > > It seems to me that we have 3 versions of tablature now: the "default" > > version in engraver-init.ly, the version that appears if the user > > include

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On 6/24/09 12:09 PM, "Hans Aberg" wrote: > On 24 Jun 2009, at 15:47, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > >> About 10 weeks ago I proposed a new architecture for autobeaming >> rules, >> which placed all the rules in a single nested alist, with one entry >> per time >> signature. > > To me that sounds

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On 24 Jun 2009, at 15:47, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: About 10 weeks ago I proposed a new architecture for autobeaming rules, which placed all the rules in a single nested alist, with one entry per time signature. To me that sounds as though the time signature selects the meter, which barely

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

On 6/23/09 11:48 PM, "Mark Polesky" wrote: > > > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: >> I mean to have an automated set of tests, that checks for example that >> >> (eq? (split-at-predicate odd? '(2 3 6 8 9 0)) >>'((2) (6 8) (0))) >> >> holds. It would be .ly file that runs Scheme function

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > >> (eq? (split-at-predicate odd? '(2 3 6 8 9 0)) > >>'((2) (6 8) (0))) > >> > >> holds. It would be .ly file that runs Scheme function on a > >> set of inputs, and compares them to a set of outputs to make > >> sure that they match. > > > > I second that, but w

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On 6/24/09 9:04 AM, "Han-Wen Nienhuys" wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > >> My current proposal is to add an autoBeamSettings property to the Beam grob. >> The autoBeamSettings can then be adjusted by overriding this property. >> >> Is this the right place

Re: Autobeaming restructuring

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47 AM, Carl D. Sorensen wrote: > My current proposal is to add an autoBeamSettings property to the Beam grob. > The autoBeamSettings can then be adjusted by overriding this property. > > Is this the right place to put the autobeam settings? It sounds like the wrong plac

FW: Autobeaming restructuring

-- Forwarded Message My current proposal is to add an autoBeamSettings property to the Beam grob. The autoBeamSettings can then be adjusted by overriding this property. -- End of Forwarded Message Oops, I guess this is named wrong. I would need to eliminate autoBeamSettings as a con

Autobeaming restructuring

About 10 weeks ago I proposed a new architecture for autobeaming rules, which placed all the rules in a single nested alist, with one entry per time signature. As part of the discussion, I proposed creating a non-displaying grob that would allow the use of \override and \revert to adjust the autob

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: >> (eq? (split-at-predicate odd?   '(2 3 6 8 9 0)) >>        '((2) (6 8) (0))) >> >> holds.  It would be .ly file that runs Scheme function on a set of >> inputs, and compares them to a set of outputs to make sure that they >> match. > > I

fixing MetronomeMark

Hi devs! The two MetronomeMark behaviours I would like to fix (or $pon$or for fixing) are: 1. The break-alignment situation (q.v., ). Any recent movement/news on this issue? Can this be fixed in Scheme or only C

Re: MacOS X 10.5 GUI

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:40:59AM +0200, James E. Bailey wrote: > > Granted, I'm on 10.4, but I've never had the "could not find platform…" > or "Consider setting $PYTHONHOME…" error messages. Also, what's with the > LilyPond.app/Contents/MacOS/python ? you have a python there? Yes, there is a

Re: [PATCH] Make some local functions public (was: Re: lily-library.scm question)

Op woensdag 24-06-2009 om 02:08 uur [tijdzone -0300], schreef Han-Wen Nienhuys: > I mean to have an automated set of tests, that checks for example that > > > (eq? (split-at-predicate odd? '(2 3 6 8 9 0)) >'((2) (6 8) (0))) > > holds. It would be .ly file that runs Scheme function on