On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> What do people think about the doc reorg shown in:
> http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/general/Manuals.html
> (and the actual manual pages, of course)
Is it worth mentioning in the essay page that the detailed
typographical exam
Graham Percival wrote Monday, September 28, 2009 8:14 PM
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:53:26PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
On 9/27/09 11:55 AM, "John Mandereau"
wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a
> écrit :
> Certainly. However, when we decide time has
On 9/28/09 1:14 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:53:26PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> On 9/27/09 11:55 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
>>
>>> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
>>> Certainly. However, when we decide time has com
2009/9/28 Patrick McCarty :
> I just pushed a fix. I did various tests on a small lilypond-book
> project (with 8 snippets), and the file/folder names now stay the same
> if the preamble is changed.
I've just done a little regtest check which included removing
force-assignment, and can confirm i
On 2009-09-28, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:40:35AM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Graham Percival
> > wrote:
> > > PS that said, if anybody's interested in hacking away at the
> > > python scripts, please do!
> >
> > Would it work if
2009/9/28 Graham Percival :
> Really? I could have sworn that I did the "touch
> Documentation/*.te??" test... or maybe this doesn't trigger a full
> rebuild after all?
That won't rebuild the translations though, will it?
Here's the error message I got:
make[3]: *** No rule to make target
`/ho
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 06:53:26PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> On 9/27/09 11:55 AM, "John Mandereau" wrote:
>
> > Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 17:37 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > Certainly. However, when we decide time has come to significantly
> > expand this appendix and it gets
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 08:44:07PM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Op maandag 28-09-2009 om 19:13 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
> Percival:
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:51:02PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> > > 2009/9/28 Graham Percival :
>
> > I have tons of horsepower at my disposal
>
Op maandag 28-09-2009 om 19:13 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Graham
Percival:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:51:02PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> > 2009/9/28 Graham Percival :
> I have tons of horsepower at my disposal
Then I have something for you, a fine new dev/class-variables
branch in gub.git
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:51:02PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/9/28 Graham Percival :
>
> > Doing the comparisons would be tricky; you'd need to fix
> > lilypond-book, then use the new lilypond-book to generate the
> > tests for the old version of lilypond, etc.
>
> Seriously, it's not that
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:40:35AM -0700, Patrick McCarty wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
> > PS that said, if anybody's interested in hacking away at the
> > python scripts, please do!
>
> Would it work if we just calculated the md5 hash for everything
> *ex
2009/9/28 Graham Percival :
> Doing the comparisons would be tricky; you'd need to fix
> lilypond-book, then use the new lilypond-book to generate the
> tests for the old version of lilypond, etc.
Seriously, it's not that difficult, since the changes I made follow
2.13.2: it's just a matter of sq
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
>> 2009/9/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
>>
>> > Of course, if someone goes
>> > around modifying the templates in lilypond-book.py, all the hashes
>> > change, and the comparison does n
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:47:08PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/9/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
>
> > Of course, if someone goes
> > around modifying the templates in lilypond-book.py, all the hashes
> > change, and the comparison does not work anymore.
>
> Oops, I guess that's me then, since I remo
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 18:04 +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/9/27 Ian Hulin :
> > Declared in context_property.cc only are:
> > general_pushpop_property (which calls sloppy_general_pushpop_property)
> > execute_override_property
>
> This looks like an oversight, since they should also be prototyp
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 05:56:27PM +0100, Neil Puttock wrote:
> 2009/9/27 John Mandereau :
>
> > A few files have been moved in English docs, could somebody do the same
> > for translated docs? I'm asking just in case somebody may volunteer,
> > otherwise I'll do this after October 5th and not be
2009/9/27 Ian Hulin :
> Declared in both are:
> apply_property_operations
> execute_revert_property
> execute_pushpop_property
> sloppy_general_pushpop_property
> updated_grob_properties
AFAICT, these aren't members of the Context class; they're just
functions whose prototypes are in the same fil
2009/9/27 John Mandereau :
> A few files have been moved in English docs, could somebody do the same
> for translated docs? I'm asking just in case somebody may volunteer,
> otherwise I'll do this after October 5th and not before I get an
> Internet connection at home.
Ah, this probably explains
2009/9/28 Han-Wen Nienhuys :
> Of course, if someone goes
> around modifying the templates in lilypond-book.py, all the hashes
> change, and the comparison does not work anymore.
Oops, I guess that's me then, since I removed the unused \paper block
settings without first doing a regtest check (II
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 06:23:12PM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> Quoting John Mandereau :
>
>> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 19:08 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
>>> I'm wondering if we can call them "Function index" and "Concept
>>> index". Or something like that. It just seems weird to hav
Quoting John Mandereau :
Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 19:08 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
I'm wondering if we can call them "Function index" and "Concept
index". Or something like that. It just seems weird to have a
"LilyPond index" for every manual.
Maybe "Function and concept index"
I have now fixed the problem with quoting \set and \override...
It was a very simply problem: The list of events to be quoted for a time step
was created basically using (cons ev oldevents) in the listener, so they were
in the reverse order. What was missing was reverting it before using it in t
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> script/output-distance.py is broken. I suspect that the general
> out/lybook-db/ thing is the problem -- when I look at self.missing and
> self.added (say, adding a print to line 818 of
> scripts/build/output-distance.py ), I see tons and
script/output-distance.py is broken. I suspect that the general
out/lybook-db/ thing is the problem -- when I look at self.missing and
self.added (say, adding a print to line 818 of
scripts/build/output-distance.py ), I see tons and tons of files.
This is confirmed by the following test:
gperc...
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
> I would like lilypond to have a Book context sitting above Score in the
> context hierarchy.
>
> How could I add Book as a valid context?
>
> I already understand how to add new properties to the lists in
> define-context-properties.scm.
>
> I h
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
> I'm looking at this in terms of design inconsistencies rather than
> documentation issues.
>
> I've been looking around at the code and documentation regarding contexts
> and noted these statements:
>
> LM 3.3.2 says
>
> "Note that there is no \n
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 08:12:26PM +0200, John Mandereau wrote:
> Le dimanche 27 septembre 2009 à 13:57 +0100, Graham Percival a écrit :
> > What do people think about the doc reorg shown in:
> > http://kainhofer.com/~lilypond/Documentation/general/Manuals.html
> > (and the actual manual pages, of
27 matches
Mail list logo
