URLs using www have escaped this update:
$ ag http://www\.lilypond\.org
Documentation/po/pt.po
11750:"see also
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/snippets/tweaks-and-;
14090:"see also
http://www.lilypond.org/doc/v2.18/Documentation/notation/repeats;
Reviewers: ,
Message:
This patch allows independent sub-groups to operate in the
Keep_alive_together_engraver. For example, it may be desired to display
four instruments in either one tutti staff, two duo staves (I+II,
III+IV), or four solo staves. By labelling the pairs in this situation,
it is
% example usage
\version "2.19.49"
targetstaff = #(define-scheme-function
(ctx) (string?)
#{
\set Staff.keepAliveInterfaces = #'()
\context Staff = #ctx { \unset Staff.keepAliveInterfaces }
#})
sopnotes = \relative c'' {
\targetstaff #"tutti"
c1 1 1 1 \break
\targetstaff
On 2016/08/23 19:43:14, dak wrote:
On 2016/08/21 16:23:57, http://mark_opus11.net wrote:
> On 2016/08/21 16:22:14, http://mark_opus11.net wrote:
> > Group lower-level contexts
>
> This introduces a `VerticalAxisGroup.keep-alive-group'
> property which can be set to a symbol to associate a
>
On 2016/08/21 16:22:14, mark_opus11.net wrote:
Group lower-level contexts
This introduces a `VerticalAxisGroup.keep-alive-group' property
which can be set to a symbol to associate a subset of contexts
under the control of the same Keep_alive_together_engraver.
This group can further be set
On 2016/08/16 16:21:26, dak wrote:
At any rate, our evaluations are not all that different and you
are the one who actually tried working with the code so I lean
towards trusting your judgment. I just hope that we don't get
hit by use cases which will again not yield to this code while
it might
On 2016/08/12 22:12:43, dak wrote:
I'm somewhat surprised since I would have thought the _semantics_
reasonably
straightforward. If the _use_ turns out to be awkward, it could
probably
amended with a few scheme functions delivering appropriate context
modifications
or possibly some music
On 2016/08/12 14:52:42, mark_opus11.net wrote:
Use key? (integer or symbol)
I looked at doing this, as David suggested, by introducing two new
properties (removal-friends and removal-foes) but found the
resultant logical permutations too confusing to either document
clearly or be useful to a
On 2016/08/06 13:26:43, Carl wrote:
Thanks for doing this -- it helps me understand better how things
work, and
gives an example of a more robust set of vim settings.
https://codereview.appspot.com/302340043/diff/1/Documentation/contributor/programming-work.itexi
File
On 2016/08/02 14:41:47, dak wrote:
On 2016/08/02 13:55:56, http://mark_opus11.net wrote:
> New property names: "keep-alive-with-layers",
"make-dead-with-layers"? Or
> perhaps rename the internal properties to those and reclaim the
shorter names
> for the user properties?
remove-friends
On 2016/08/02 11:45:28, dak wrote:
I've taken a look at the code and it does not appear like there is a
danger
for infinite loops: the checks for suicide relying on other axis
groups are
not called recursively. The only real danger we are dealing with here
is
inefficiency, and
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Doc: CG update Indenting with vim section
Suggestions for .vimrc did not produce correct indentation of C++
code, and also included personal and irrelevant settings such as
statusline and incsearch. I have replaced them with the settings
in the GNU GCC Wiki which do
Reviewers: ,
Description:
Keep a staff alive with multiple layers
This allows the `VerticalAxisGroup.remove-layer' property to
accept a list of values. The layer will stay alive with any
other member of the Keep_alive_together_engrave group with a
remove-layer value in that list.
The principal
On 2016/07/22 07:55:54, dak wrote:
On 2016/07/22 07:41:00, http://mark_opus11.net wrote:
> On 2016/07/22 04:26:01, lemzwerg wrote:
> > LGMT. Thanks a lot!
>
> Might it be a good idea to keep one example using the old define
method, which
> is still more convenient for setting the value for
On 2016/07/22 04:26:01, lemzwerg wrote:
LGMT. Thanks a lot!
Might it be a good idea to keep one example using the old define method,
which is still more convenient for setting the value for multiple usages
of \afterGrace (or globally)?
https://codereview.appspot.com/304200043/
On 2015/07/10 10:34:24, Trevor Daniels wrote:
If I understand this correctly it permits a variable definition to be
used in
some circumstances where a music function definition would previously
have been
required to achieve the same effect. That seems a worthwhile
improvement and
https://codereview.appspot.com/137920043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/input.itely
File Documentation/notation/input.itely (left):
https://codereview.appspot.com/137920043/diff/20001/Documentation/notation/input.itely#oldcode2075
Documentation/notation/input.itely:2075: @funindex
17 matches
Mail list logo
