On 2015/05/05 12:07:32, mail_philholmes.net wrote:
I read the CG on *index entries, and experimented a fair amount, but
never
quite got to understand the difference.
Is cindex the Command index only? Should it be @cindex \incipit or
@cindex
incipit? Or both? And funindex is the main
One suggestion, otherwise LGTM.
https://codereview.appspot.com/232180043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely
File Documentation/notation/ancient.itely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/232180043/diff/1/Documentation/notation/ancient.itely#newcode2651
- Original Message -
From: tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com
To: philehol...@googlemail.com; d...@gnu.org; pkx1...@gmail.com
Cc: re...@codereview-hr.appspotmail.com; lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Document incipit command (issue 232180043
On 2015/05/05 13:09:15, Trevor Daniels wrote:
On 2015/05/05 12:07:32, http://mail_philholmes.net wrote:
I read the CG on *index entries, and experimented a fair amount, but
never
quite got to understand the difference.
Is cindex the Command index only? Should it be @cindex \incipit or
On 2015/05/05 13:09:15, Trevor Daniels wrote:
On 2015/05/05 12:07:32, http://mail_philholmes.net wrote:
I read the CG on *index entries, and experimented a fair amount, but
never
quite got to understand the difference.
Is cindex the Command index only? Should it be @cindex \incipit or
Thanks for the feedback! I've improved the doc strings, and revised the
doc string for ly:stencil-scale so that it covers negative arguments.
-Paul
https://codereview.appspot.com/235090043/diff/1/input/regression/stencil-scale.ly
File input/regression/stencil-scale.ly (right):
Hi all,
as I've already mentioned, I've already started working on a new
LilyDev. I'm going to use tools that should make it easy to build
different versions of LilyDev (e.g. 32-bit and 64-bit, possibly also
based on different distros).
In order to reduce work duplication, I suggest to wait
2015-05-04 20:29 GMT+02:00 Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net:
Years ago I started by (accidentally) using it as a live OS. It's a
useless way of trying to use it. I wouldn't bother to try to support it.
I totally agree. In my experience a live OS makes sense only when you must
fix something
On Mon, 04 May 2015 23:58:12 -0700, Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net
wrote:
Speaking as someone who regularly gives LilyPond initiation seminars
for adults and children, the hardest part is explaining to them why
\relative mode is not on by default.
What if they didn't have to type
2015-05-06 7:19 GMT+02:00 Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com:
as I've already mentioned, I've already started working on a new
LilyDev. I'm going to use tools that should make it easy to build
different versions of LilyDev (e.g. 32-bit and 64-bit, possibly also
based on different
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Multiple layout blocks can be combined in sensible ways, with later
definitions taking precedence over earlier ones on an item by item
basis, but the same is not true when layout blocks are assigned to
variables. See
- Original Message -
From: tdanielsmu...@googlemail.com
So in addition to your two entries I would suggest adding
@cindex incipits, adding
or some such.
Trevor
OK - done that on my local copy here. It compiles fine, so I'm not
proposing to upload it for further review.
--
Multiple layout blocks can be combined in sensible ways, with later definitions
taking precedence over earlier ones on an item by item basis, but the same is
not true when layout blocks are assigned to variables. See
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.19/Documentation/notation/the-layout-block
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:57 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Multiple layout blocks can be combined in sensible ways, with later
definitions taking precedence over earlier ones on an item by item
basis, but the same is not true when layout blocks are
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 3:57 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
Multiple layout blocks can be combined in sensible ways, with later
definitions taking precedence over earlier ones on an item by item
basis, but the
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:22 PM
Well, yes, I knew that, but the effect is that existing definitions
are overridden iff they appear later, while new definitions are added,
so definitions assigned early can act as defaults.
And
Phil Holmes wrote Monday, May 04, 2015 3:57 PM
As promised, a starter list of requirements for the issue handling system,
to allow us to check potential replacements to Google code.
14. Allow export of the issue database in CSV form
Actually GoogleCode (and Allura for that matter)
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:22 PM
Well, yes, I knew that, but the effect is that existing definitions
are overridden iff they appear later, while new definitions are added,
so definitions assigned early can act as defaults.
And why wouldn't that work in your use scenario?
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
The answer to both these questions is that the satb.ly template
comes after the user's code in the input file. So the overriding
operates the wrong way round.
So maybe just override when
Hi Trevor,
probably I did not understand your context. But why not just doing it
the default way: A layout block with the defaults and then the user can
put his own layout block overriding what he wants to? This way the user
settings take precedence like you wish.
As I said, I probably missed
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:00 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 7:14 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
... ok I found the original post. Well I don't know why you need to use
variables here. But in this case, just forget my mail – I don't know how
to solve this.
Joram
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 8:00 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 7:14 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Phil Holmes m...@philholmes.net wrote:
As promised, a starter list of requirements for the issue handling system,
to allow us to check potential replacements to Google code.
Hi Phil, thanks for this recap.
This may well be a stupid question, and if so please
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:25 PM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
This kind of addition would likely get
the most useful feedback from people *teaching* LilyPond. We don't have
a lot of those unless you count batch teachers, namely documentation
writers.
Paco would be the obvious person to ask. (Hi
Valentin Villenave wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 7:01 AM
Surely there must be something I’ve overlooked, because all these
talks of setting up a new system on Savannah must have a valid reason;
having been using their bug tracker semi-regularly, I just can’t
figure out what these reasons may
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
The answer to both these questions is that the satb.ly template
comes after the user's code in the input file. So the overriding
operates the wrong
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 7:14 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
The answer to both these questions is that the satb.ly template
comes after the user's code in
Hi James,
Just to let you know, for me the changes to the content have been OK
already since patch set 13 - many thanks for this effort! (Found still
one small typo, though...)
Heikki
https://codereview.appspot.com/120480043/diff/320001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David, you wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 7:14 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
David Kastrup wrote Tuesday, May 05, 2015 5:44 PM
Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk writes:
The answer to both these questions is that the
Valentin Villenave valen...@villenave.net writes:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 12:25 PM, d...@gnu.org wrote:
This kind of addition would likely get
the most useful feedback from people *teaching* LilyPond. We don't have
a lot of those unless you count batch teachers, namely documentation
Carl Sorensen wrote Monday, May 04, 2015 11:44 PM
On 5/4/15 3:44 PM, Trevor Daniels t.dani...@treda.co.uk wrote:
Trevor Daniels wrote Monday, May 04, 2015 10:01 PM
OK, I've created a project on SourceForge and started
downloading the issues DB from GoogleCode.
[snip]
You can see the
32 matches
Mail list logo
