Graham Percival wrote:
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
Trevor Daniels wrote:
A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
least as important as a \version statement, which is
mentioned there.
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Mark Polesky wrote:
> First, if you haven't looked at it yet, you should know that
> one direct result of the patch is the increase in length of
> many of the examples (vertically). Graham has already
> expressed his dissatisfaction with this, since it increases
>
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:51 PM
>>
>> or as a new 2.1.7.
>
> I suppose this would do, as long as the previous examples
> didn't include bar checks.
The only part that might need them are some of the slur / phrasing
sl
Graham Percival wrote:
> If we need it for 2.3 Songs... which I suppose we should
> do... then I'd put it as either the last item inside
> 2.1.6 Advanced rhythmic commands, or as a new 2.1.7.
A bar check is hardly an "advanced rhythmic command"...
- Mark
___
Graham Percival wrote Wednesday, May 05, 2010 3:51 PM
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
> least as important as a \version statement,
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:19:52AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> > A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
> > input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
> > least as important as a \version statement, which is
> > mentioned there.
>
> I think a bett
Hello, sorry to respond to myself.
James Lowe wrote:
Hello
Trevor Daniels wrote:
I'd be happy with this too.
Trevor
Thanks all.
I'll get a patch made some time this evening.
James
I see this has already been done.
Sorry for the noise.
James
_
Hello
Trevor Daniels wrote:
I'd be happy with this too.
Trevor
Thanks all.
I'll get a patch made some time this evening.
James
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
I posted a new patch set incorporating most of the requests
you guys made. Please have a look at the new one and let me
know what you think: http://codereview.appspot.com/1056041
Thanks.
- Mark
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@g
On 5/4/10 11:19 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
>> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
>> least as important as a \version statement, which is
>> mentioned there.
>
> I think a better place would be i
I'd be happy with this too.
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Polesky"
To: "Carl Sorensen" ; "lilypond-devel"
; "Trevor Daniels"
Cc: "Graham Percival" ; "James Lowe"
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 6:19 PM
Subjec
Trevor Daniels wrote:
> A brief description of bar checks in 1.2.2 Working on
> input files would be good. I think bar checks are at
> least as important as a \version statement, which is
> mentioned there.
I think a better place would be in a new @subsection at the
top of 2.1 "Single staff notat
James Lowe wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:19 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to
Hello,
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to start it right from the first.
I would ag
Mark Polesky wrote Tuesday, May 04, 2010 5:34 AM
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
into; we ought to start it right from the first.
I would agree with this. In fact I put b
Trevor Daniels wrote:
>> I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece
>> is more than one bar long. That's a good habit to get
>> into; we ought to start it right from the first.
>
> I would agree with this. In fact I put bar checks into
> quite a few of the examples in the LM originall
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 06:10:21PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:49 PM
>
>> On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
>>
>>> * Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear.
>>
>> I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than o
Graham Percival wrote:
>> If anyone is up to it, I'd like someone to look over the
>> patch to see if I've made anything worse.
>
> I started looking, and saw some questionable stuff. I'll
> take a longer look later today, after I wake up and have
> coffee.
(the patch is at http://codereview.apps
Carl Sorensen wrote Sunday, May 02, 2010 5:49 PM
On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
* Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear.
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more
than one bar
long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right
f
On 5/2/10 4:45 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> * Use bar-checks (`|') only when barring is unclear.
I think we should always use bar-checks when the piece is more than one bar
long. That's a good habit to get into; we ought to start it right from the
first.
Thanks,
Carl
__
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 12:15:17PM +0100, Trevor Daniels wrote:
>
> Also need to specify default indenting is 2 spaces.
That's a pre-GDP rule. I'm sure it's in the CG already.
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
ht
On Sun, May 02, 2010 at 03:45:49AM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for
> LilyPond code formatting.
1) wait for GLISS.
2) write/edit a scheme or python program to do this.
3) can we get bloody 2.14 out the bloody door before starting yet
another bl
Message -
From: "Mark Polesky"
To: "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 11:45 AM
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: LM: Reformat ly code.
So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for
LilyPond code formatting. I combed through the LM
attempting to impr
So I guess I'm working towards a more formal standard for
LilyPond code formatting. I combed through the LM
attempting to improve the ly code that's already there. In
the process I gleaned what I think are some reasonable
standards (some of which are already in CG 4.3.4 -- see
below).
If anyone
24 matches
Mail list logo