Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:33:04 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue.
---
Documentation/notation/repeats.itely | 58 ++
Documentation/usage/running.itely| 14 ++--
2 files changed, 62 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-
On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:39:27PM -0700, Mark Polesky wrote:
> It struck me that there are more options for dealing with
> the "\relative inside \repeat" issue. Can someone look over
> this to make sure I'm not doing anything sacrililygious?
As usual, I have no insights about the content, but in
On 4/29/10 1:42 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Carl,
> you didn't "reply to all", but here's my response anyway:
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to not reply to all. Thanks for covering for
me.
> - Mark
>
>
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> I disagree with the idea that the simplest solution is to
>>
Sending to list for completeness.
On 4/28/10 12:39 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> It struck me that there are more options for dealing with
> the "\relative inside \repeat" issue. Can someone look over
> this to make sure I'm not doing anything sacrililygious?
In my opinion, the tone of your add
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
> write
>
> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' { c2 d }
>
> or
>
> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {
> c2 d
> }
>
> but back when the GDP was
ark Polesky
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:42:15 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue.
---
Documentation/notation/repeats.itely | 12 --
Documentation/usage/running.itely| 36 +
2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 20 deletio
LGTM
Trevor
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Polesky"
To: "Carl Sorensen" ; "Graham Percival"
Cc: "lilypond-devel"
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: PATCH: Doc: Clarify \relative inside \repeat issue.
Carl Sorensen w
Looks good to me. As a matter of fact, I really like it.
Carl
On 4/30/10 10:46 AM, "Mark Polesky" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> I disagree with the idea that the simplest solution is to
>> move the \relative outside the \repeat.
>
> I've attached a new patch following your suggestions.
>
Hello,
Graham Percival wrote:
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
write
\context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' { c2 d }
or
\context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {
c2 d
}
but back when
On 5/11/10 10:27 AM, "James Lowe" wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
>>> write
>>>
>>> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' { c2 d }
>>>
>
On 5/11/10 10:40 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
> In the example above:
>
> \context Voice \repeat unfold 2 \relative c' {c2 d},
>
> \relative c' { c2 d } is a single music expression, so it doesn't need {}
> around it to turn it into a sequence in order to work with \repeat unfold 2.
> Similarly,
(sorry for the excessive quoting, but it's relevant)
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 05:27:02PM +0100, James Lowe wrote:
> Graham Percival wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>> If you want to use the minumum number of { and indentation levels, you can
>>> write
>>>
>>> \co
Hello,
Graham Percival wrote:
I think the "always add explicit {} apart from ones that would
surround an entire example" might the best way to go; if we
encounter any more exceptions to the "always use them" rule, we
can add them later.
This guideline has been added to the CG.
James
__
13 matches
Mail list logo
