Keith OHara writes:
> I had complained that this method caused problems when instruments
> take cues from each other, but these problems are avoided so
> long as the temporary voice is explicitly created and finished.
>
> The uses to finish spanners after the last note,
> { e'2\p\< d'\> s1*0\
Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
> Yes, I now agree. We can't continue to advocate s1*0
> in the docs now we are aware of these pitfalls.
I suggest we mention that <> takes no time in NR 1.5.1
Chorded Notes, but avoid it in the examples.
Most of the visible uses of s1*0 in the docs were in
David Kastrup writes:
> Pavel Roskin writes:
>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
>> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
>>> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>>>
>>> \new Staff <<
>>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\m
Hi,
Of course i'm not in a position to instruct you; i'd just like to
share my thoughts.
I think some of you take this discussion too personally and i'm afraid
that this can result (already resulted?) in a serious conflict :(
David found something interesting and i guess that he was pretty
enthus
Pavel Roskin writes:
> On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
>> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>>
>> \new Staff <<
>> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
>
> A sp
On Sun, 06 May 2012 10:34:24 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Quick: tell me what you would expect without too much thinking
> (imagine you are a naive user) from the following:
>
> \new Staff <<
> \relative c'' { c4 d e f s1*0-\markup Oops c d e f g1 } \\
A spacer 1 unit wide and 0 units high.
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:54:49PM +0100, James wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 20:32, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
>
> > Now that this is settled,
>
> Oh that's ok then. I'll get my coat.
Yep.
> > I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and neat,
> > faced such opposition. I, for one
> I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and
> neat, faced such opposition. I, for one, will be using the new <>
> idiom.
+1. I'm open to syntax improvements, but currently I fail to see one
which fulfils the necessary constraints. As other have suggested:
Let's do thi
On 2012/05/07 18:25:35, Graham Percival wrote:
looks like this simplifies things, which is always nice to see.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6202048/diff/1/lily/slur-configuration.cc
File lily/slur-configuration.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6202048/diff/1/lily/slur-configurati
Nicolas Sceaux wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 8:32 PM
Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :
\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
} \addlyrics { Oh no }
\relative c' {
e2\p\< d\> <>\!
} \addlyrics { Oh yes }
I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 20:32, Nicolas Sceaux wrote:
> I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
> Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.
> Now that this is settled,
Oh that's ok then. I'll get my coat.
> I don't understand why David's proposition, which is bo
Le 7 mai 2012 à 13:58, David Kastrup a écrit :
> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> s1*0\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh no }
>
> \relative c' {
> e2\p\< d\> <>\!
> } \addlyrics { Oh yes }
I think that closes the s1*0 vs. <> debate.
Because of its unexpected side effects, the s1*0 idiom must be banished.
Now th
Hello
On 7 May 2012 18:55, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> On 7 mai 2012, at 19:54, James wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 7 May 2012 18:21, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
>>> On 7 mai 2012, at 19:17, lilypond.patchy.jl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 9f408c3d2cfe0e3bbe0a683ff
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6193043/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
looks like this simplifies things, which is always nice to see.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6202048/diff/1/lily/slur-configuration.cc
File lily/slur-configuration.cc (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6202048/diff/1/lily/slur-configuration.cc#newcode291
lily/slur-configuration.cc:291: siz
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6189047/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
LGTM
http://codereview.appspot.com/6191048/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Reviewers: Graham Percival,
Message:
Before integrating po-replace in the release process,
let build a well-formed lilypond.pot in one run.
Description:
PO: modifying po-replace before integrating it to the release process
Until now, updating the translation template file is disconnected from
On 7 mai 2012, at 19:54, James wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 7 May 2012 18:21, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
>> On 7 mai 2012, at 19:17, lilypond.patchy.jl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 9f408c3d2cfe0e3bbe0a683ff52422bd784459b8
>>>
>>> *** FAILED STEP ***
>>>
>>> merg
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 18:21, m...@mikesolomon.org wrote:
> On 7 mai 2012, at 19:17, lilypond.patchy.jl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 9f408c3d2cfe0e3bbe0a683ff52422bd784459b8
>>
>> *** FAILED STEP ***
>>
>> merge from staging
>>
>> maybe somebody pushed a comm
Le 06/05/2012 18:34, Graham Percival disait :
On Sun, May 06, 2012 at 06:19:42PM +0200, Jean-Charles Malahieude wrote:
What you'll find in the enclosed patch is an attempt to adapt
'make po-replace' in order to have an automatically well-formed .pot
included in 'make dist'.
Please upload patch
On 7 mai 2012, at 19:17, lilypond.patchy.jl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Begin LilyPond compile, commit: 9f408c3d2cfe0e3bbe0a683ff52422bd784459b8
>
> *** FAILED STEP ***
>
> merge from staging
>
> maybe somebody pushed a commit directly to master?
>
>
Crap that might have been me with d
Graham Percival percival-music.ca> writes:
> > James gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
Oops. I thought 's' stood for "skip", but it stands for "spacer rest".
Chords are covered in the Learning Manual, though empty chords are not,
yet. Neither s
"Trevor Daniels" writes:
[...]
> Let's forget the unrealistic convoluted examples and look
> at a real case where s1*0 is necessary and is used in the
> docs (taken from
> http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.14/Documentation/notation/common-notation-for-keyboards
> )
>
> It's needed when a crescendo
2012/5/7 Graham Percival :
> I'm fine with a "browse 10 random snippets" option in LSR. I'm
> even fine with the idea of automatically loading a few random
> snippets on lilypond.org using some javascript hack. (in theory,
> at least -- there are technical issues to consider)
While we are on th
2012/5/7 Francisco Vila :
> My approach of a fully translated collection of tweets is not to be
> finally applied, so I will revert the commits in Translation branch.
What's the protocol for adding translated tweets to tweets.xml?
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.paconet.org , www.csmbadaj
2012/5/7 David Kastrup :
> I repeat my suggestion to use the same pondings on every page, filtered
> through _all_ of the languages in the browser preferences. The page
> choice itself is based on the _first_ supported language.
I think no filter exists, all tweets and their translations can be
r
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 10:05:45AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
> > It's important that these things lend credibility to LilyPond.
Yes. Not necessarily time-specific, either. IMO something like
"The East Anglican Choir of Upper North-West Sussex performs
chor
Graham Percival wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 10:29 AM
Leaving that question aside, we're talking about the preferred
method of having something which does not tamper with the current
duration but does take post-events.
A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
non-duration post-ev
Ian Hulin writes:
> Hi all,
> Point of information:
> On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> James writes:
>>>
>>
>>
>> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
>> non-duration post-event. James and I d
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:04:50AM +0100, Ian Hulin wrote:
> Hi all,
> Point of information:
>
> On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
> >
> > A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> > non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a
> > different tool (such
Graham Percival writes:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>> > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>>
>> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
>> advantage of _not_ tampering with the current durati
On May 7, 2012, at 3:29 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>>> Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>>
>> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
>> advantage of _not_ tampe
Hi all,
Point of information:
On 07/05/12 10:29, Graham Percival wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> James writes:
>>
>
>
> A number of people think that <> is the ideal tool for a
> non-duration post-event. James and I disagree; we think that a
> diffe
On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 11:00:39AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> James writes:
>
> > Evidence? 'skip' is exactly what it says on the tin.
>
> But we are not talking about \skip (which actually would have the
> advantage of _not_ tampering with the current duration in the parser,
> and the disadv
James writes:
> On 7 May 2012 06:50, Keith OHara wrote:
>> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>> <> is less transparent, because a thoughtful user would
>> expect it to have the same duration of the previous note
>> or chord, or to be a syntax error.
>>
>> On the other hand,
>> 1) the chord c
James wrote Monday, May 07, 2012 9:11 AM
Also isn't this a really a GLISS topic?
No. You miss the point: we're not talking about something
new: <> has been valid syntax for years, but its semantics
are not documented. They should be.
Trevor
"m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
> On 7 mai 2012, at 09:26, David Kastrup wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps we should include croaks in the pondings (somewhat akin to
> Bleats http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/111003>):
> interesting LilyPond oneliners, not necessarily restrained to
Hello,
On 7 May 2012 06:50, Keith OHara wrote:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
>> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
>> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
>> current duration happens t
On 7 mai 2012, at 10:05, David Kastrup wrote:
> "m...@apollinemike.com" writes:
>
>> On 7 mai 2012, at 09:26, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>>
>>Perhaps we should include croaks in the pondings (somewhat akin to
>>Bleats http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/111003>):
>>interesting
On 7 mai 2012, at 09:26, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should include croaks in the pondings (somewhat akin to
> Bleats http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/111003>):
> interesting LilyPond oneliners, not necessarily restrained to 12
> characters, and their output.
This seems a bit
Perhaps we should include croaks in the pondings (somewhat akin to
Bleats http://www.sluggy.com/comics/archives/daily/111003>):
interesting LilyPond oneliners, not necessarily restrained to 12
characters, and their output.
Which brings up another issue: if we collect a database of those, they
wil
Keith OHara writes:
> Trevor Daniels treda.co.uk> writes:
>
>> My point really is that <> exists now, so there ought to
>> be a short note in the section where chords are introduced
>> to say that an empty chord takes no time, whatever the
>> current duration happens to be.
>
> I agree with Tr
43 matches
Mail list logo
