n.putt...@gmail.com schrieb:
On 2010/06/30 07:48:12, marc wrote:
So I tried to extend the parenthesize-stencil function in
scm/stencil.scm.
It compiles without error, but the regression file is cluttered up.
I can't test this. Would you mind uploading another version here which
includes al
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
On 6/30/10 1:48 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
[...]
http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004#newcode130
scm/define-grob-properties.scm:130: (bracket-width ,number? "Width of
the harmonic angle bracket.")
Why do we need brac
On 2010/06/30 07:48:12, marc wrote:
So I tried to extend the parenthesize-stencil function in
scm/stencil.scm.
It compiles without error, but the regression file is cluttered up.
I can't test this. Would you mind uploading another version here which
includes all the changes since the first
Are you still waiting for someone to review this? If so, here are a
couple minor things:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1689041/diff/2001/3001
File scm/define-markup-commands.scm (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/1689041/diff/2001/3001#newcode848
scm/define-markup-commands.scm:848: X RIGHT
On 6/30/10 1:48 AM, "Marc Hohl" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen schrieb:
>> [...]
http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004#newcode130
scm/define-grob-properties.scm:130: (bracket-width ,number? "Width of
the harmonic angle bracket.")
Why do we need bracket-width? Why
Hi David,
> Instead I am in the position of doomsayer. And if you say "typesetting
> a complex score with 100 pages will take a week for the final, good
> pass", then the obvious reply is that letting it done manually will
> require two months. So an expensive good option is still worth a lot,
>
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:01:06PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Oops. I thought that the idea was not to duplicate listings. I already
>> changed the entry, but if it is to be changed back, it seems like a good
>> idea to correct the spelling.
>
> Yes, please cha
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 02:01:06PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Oops. I thought that the idea was not to duplicate listings. I already
> changed the entry, but if it is to be changed back, it seems like a good
> idea to correct the spelling.
Yes, please change it back, and fix the spelling.
Joe Neeman writes:
> It isn't just a matter of running time, though. There are plenty of
> side-effects in the layout step (for example, grobs which get
> destroyed). If we really wanted to try multiple layouts, someone would
> have to go through the whole backend code to remove these
> side-effe
Benkő Pál writes:
>> Any new / new-ish contributors, please check:
>> http://lilypond.org/website/authors.html
>>
>> The basic breakdown is:
>> - if you have git access, you're a developer
>> - if you don't, you're a contributor
>> - developers shouldn't appear in the contributor list
>> - devel
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:59:54AM +0200, Benkő Pál wrote:
>>
>> I'm listed in both Current contributors (as Pál Benkő) and in
>> Previous Contributors (as Pal Benko), someone please
>> remove the latter one.
>
> Actually, that's fine -- Previous contributors is for an
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 13:41 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joe Neeman writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 07:04 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> Joe Neeman writes:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 20:23 +0200, Arno Waschk wrote:
> >> >> can't we have correct heights say for every bar (which mus
Joe Neeman writes:
> On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 07:04 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Joe Neeman writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 20:23 +0200, Arno Waschk wrote:
>> >> can't we have correct heights say for every bar (which must be computed
>> >> later anyway) with clever caching so we have them
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 10:59:54AM +0200, Benkő Pál wrote:
>
> I'm listed in both Current contributors (as Pál Benkő) and in
> Previous Contributors (as Pal Benko), someone please
> remove the latter one.
Actually, that's fine -- Previous contributors is for anybody who
worked on stuff before 2.
> Any new / new-ish contributors, please check:
> http://lilypond.org/website/authors.html
>
> The basic breakdown is:
> - if you have git access, you're a developer
> - if you don't, you're a contributor
> - developers shouldn't appear in the contributor list
> - developers can pretty much pick t
On Mon, 2010-06-28 at 06:34 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> On 06/27/2010 01:25 PM, Joe Neeman wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-06-27 at 06:56 -0400, Boris Shingarov wrote:
> >
> > > This was discussed on this list only a few weeks ago. I think we
> > are on
> > > our way to get rid of global page*line br
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 07:04 +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Joe Neeman writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 20:23 +0200, Arno Waschk wrote:
> >> can't we have correct heights say for every bar (which must be computed
> >> later anyway) with clever caching so we have them ready when the final
> >>
On 06/30/2010 01:04 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
until after line-breaking. Also, the vertical collision avoidance means
that in { c1^"long long markup" c1^"long long markup" }, we cannot
calculate the height of the second bar without considering the first bar
too (and the answer will change if the
Carl Sorensen schrieb:
[...]
http://codereview.appspot.com/1669041/diff/26001/27004#newcode130
scm/define-grob-properties.scm:130: (bracket-width ,number? "Width of
the harmonic angle bracket.")
Why do we need bracket-width? Why can't we just use the pre-existing
width property?
Hm, Nei
19 matches
Mail list logo
