Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:47:21 -0800, d...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2013/02/27 07:40:59, Keith wrote:
Oops. It was \oldTransposition but it was not put into LilyPond.
Since the sign of instrumentTransposition has been inverted, it would
require serious
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:18:09 -0800, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
The \oldTransposition you suggested in
https://codereview.appspot.com/7303057 has the required trickery,
and I just re-checked that it works fine.
I'd prefer not giving it a name
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:47:21 -0800, d...@gnu.org wrote:
On 2013/02/27 07:40:59, Keith wrote:
Oops. It was \oldTransposition but it was not put into LilyPond.
Since the sign of instrumentTransposition has been inverted, it would
require serious trickery or a separate music event type to
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
On 2013/02/27 07:40:59, Keith wrote:
On 2013/02/27 05:58:58, Keith wrote:
(and @code{\whateverItWasCalled f'} is available
Oops. It was \oldTransposition but it was not put into LilyPond.
Since the sign of instrumentTransposition has been inverted, it would
require serious trickery or
LGTM
https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/diff/4001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/diff/4001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode71
Documentation/changes.tely:71: would have been the other way round.
This and the
On 2013/02/27 05:58:58, Keith wrote:
(and @code{\whateverItWasCalled f'} is available
Oops. It was \oldTransposition but it was not put into LilyPond.
On the one hand, any score that used \transposition p in music that
goes through transpose will change its behavior.
On the other hand, I
On 2013/02/25 00:01:50, dak wrote:
Hope I interpreted Trevor's comment correctly.
Not quite, but it is hardly a point worth labouring
over. Changes are listed with the most recent at the
top, and 'previously' means 'earlier in time', so it
ought to refer to items lower in the list. Perhaps
On 2013/02/25 16:02:41, Trevor Daniels wrote:
Not quite, but it is hardly a point worth labouring
over. Changes are listed with the most recent at the
top, and 'previously' means 'earlier in time', so it
ought to refer to items lower in the list.
Our changes list is not really ordered in
LGTM apart from the suggested change.
https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):
https://codereview.appspot.com/7404046/diff/1/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode83
Documentation/changes.tely:83: would have been the other
Hope I interpreted Trevor's comment correctly. The roposed new order
did not occur to me since it violates causation: the (now) first change
is dependent on the second one. However, that is on an implementation
level and probably not interesting to the user.
11 matches
Mail list logo
