Op Fri, 22 Apr 2016 14:45:41 +0600
Henning Hraban Ramm schreef:
> I started working on the German translation (see attached), but can
> proceed only next week. In case someone else is working on that,
> please let me know - we can at least proofread each other.
Thanks!
> Did you consider using
Op Sun, 24 Apr 2016 10:41:53 +0200
David Kastrup schreef:
> And I haven't seen _any_ compelling argument yet _why_ there is no
> useful common ground between Python2 and Python3 that could do the job
> without major rewrites of the current code base.
I have maintained the Frescobaldi (written py
On 24/04/2016 12:12 PM, Phil Holmes wrote:
- Original Message - From: "David Kastrup"
No disagreement here. At the very least it would be verification that
the ones responsible for doing the GUB part of the transition are
comfortable with the basic necessities.
I think the only per
On Sun 24 Apr 2016 at 10:55:39 (+0200), m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl wrote:
[-- Attachment #1 --]
[-- Type: text/html, Encoding: base64, Size: 4.7K --]
[-- text/html is unsupported (use 'v' to view this part) --]
Please configure your client to post a text equivalent of your HTML code.
Cheers,
David.
On Sun 24 Apr 2016 at 10:00:38 (+0200), Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 24.04.2016 um 09:56 schrieb David Kastrup:
> > Noeck writes:
> >>> So how do you define "the default"
> >> As written before: What ships with the default installation.
> >
> > So python3 needs to be invoked using #!/usr/bin/python3 in
- Original Message -
From: "David Kastrup"
No disagreement here. At the very least it would be verification that
the ones responsible for doing the GUB part of the transition are
comfortable with the basic necessities.
I think the only person likely to be able to upgrade GUB to pyth
Paul Morris writes:
>> On Apr 24, 2016, at 11:15 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Paul Morris writes:
>>
>>> IIUC, wouldn’t the first step be, in any case, to get LilyPond’s
>>> python scripts working on python 2.7?
>>
>> Which ones _aren't_ working with Python 2.7? I run a number of them
>>
> On Apr 24, 2016, at 11:15 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Paul Morris writes:
>
>> IIUC, wouldn’t the first step be, in any case, to get LilyPond’s
>> python scripts working on python 2.7?
>
> Which ones _aren't_ working with Python 2.7? I run a number of them
> routinely, and I just converted
Paul Morris writes:
> IIUC, wouldn’t the first step be, in any case, to get LilyPond’s
> python scripts working on python 2.7?
Which ones _aren't_ working with Python 2.7? I run a number of them
routinely, and I just converted some file with midi2ly as well.
--
David Kastrup
IIUC, wouldn’t the first step be, in any case, to get LilyPond’s python scripts
working on python 2.7? Then at that point we could discuss and decide about
whether it’s better to switch to python 3 or to support both 2.7 and 3.
Searching the LilyPond source code for files with extension “.py” t
2016-04-24 13:46 GMT+02:00 m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl :
> [...] Many python
> syntax can be compatible with both Python2 and Python3 without much effort.
> There are in practice only a few things that are a bit harder. For example
> strings/unicode/binary datatypes. If it's only a limited amount of old
2016-04-23 13:59 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
> But lilypond ships its own internal version of python in …lilypond/usr/bin.
> Is this not to shield lilypond from system versions?
In my experience, the Python interpreter bundled with LilyPond on Mac
is pretty unusable, also for running Python script
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 02:02:19PM +0200, Noeck wrote:
> > I will add a comment to the first of these two issues (and mark the second
> > as duplicate):
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1895/
> > https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1895/
>
> Which two? They are the
> I will add a comment to the first of these two issues (and mark the second as
> duplicate):
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1895/
> https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/1895/
Which two? They are the same. Probably just a copy-and-paste mistake.
For completeness, it
How much python code are we talking about within the complete LilyPond project? The discussion until now seems to be a discussion about Python2/3 transitions in general. But maybe the situation isn't that bad. Many python syntax can be compatible with both Python2 and Python3 without much effort. T
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> So far we only have an offer for a hard and incompatible transition
>> to Python3-only
>
> Actually, I dislike this. Similar to you, I don't see a convincing
> reason to not write python code that is compatible with both version 2
> and version 3.
Well, #!/usr/bin/guil
> So far we only have an offer for a hard and incompatible transition
> to Python3-only
Actually, I dislike this. Similar to you, I don't see a convincing
reason to not write python code that is compatible with both version 2
and version 3.
Werner
_
If anybody likes to check the difference between 2-3 here are just two links
https://docs.python.org/3/whatsnew/3.0.html
http://www.cs.carleton.edu/faculty/jgoldfea/cs201/spring11/Python2vs3.pdf
There are many more docs on internet dealing with the version
differences ...
"m.tarensk...@zonnet.nl" writes:
> Has anyone considered using the six library? Six has helped me a lot
> in my own Python projects to write code that is compatible with both
> python2 and python3.
Well, as long as we have no one considering doing a gradual
python2/python3 transition, there is n
Has anyone considered using the six library? Six has helped me a lot in my own Python projects to write code that is compatible with both python2 and python3. MT Oorspronkelijk bericht Onderwerp: Re: Python 3, was Re: ANN: Frescobaldi 2.19.0Van: David Kastrup Aan: Urs Liska Cc: lily
Urs Liska writes:
> Am 24.04.2016 um 09:56 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Noeck writes:
>>
So how do you define "the default"
>>>
>>> As written before: What ships with the default installation.
>>
>> So python3 needs to be invoked using #!/usr/bin/python3 in the scripts
>> (what happens when
On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 09:44:33AM +0200, Thomas Morley wrote:
>
> As a side-note, midi2ly needs our shipped python-version. It stopps
> working even with my system-python, i.e. 2.7.9.
> Not sure, whether this requires a bugreport, because there is no bug
> with lily's python...
>
I will add a c
On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:54:05 +0200
Urs Liska wrote:
> If you install LilyPond through your (Linux) OS's package manager this
> will detect any updates to the OS's packages (of course) and will
> therefore update automatically whenever you run your package manager's
> update procedure (e.g. apt-ge
Thomas Morley writes:
> 2016-04-23 11:35 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
>> Pardon my ignorance but why do you want to support a common subset?
>> For what purpose? The whole point of Python 3 is that it breaks 2 in
>> order to become a superior and more consistent langauge. It’s been
>> out since 200
Am 24.04.2016 um 09:56 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Noeck writes:
>
>>> So how do you define "the default"
>>
>> As written before: What ships with the default installation.
>
> So python3 needs to be invoked using #!/usr/bin/python3 in the scripts
> (what happens when Python 4 gets created), and we
Noeck writes:
>> So how do you define "the default"
>
> As written before: What ships with the default installation.
So python3 needs to be invoked using #!/usr/bin/python3 in the scripts
(what happens when Python 4 gets created), and we need to either support
Python2 and Python3 in parallel (in
Am 24.04.2016 um 09:39 schrieb Villum Sejersen:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:22:23 +0200
>> Urs Liska wrote:
>
>> >/Am 22.04.2016 um 10:19 schrieb Johan Vromans:/
>> >/>> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild. /
>> >/> Good job! Thanks!/
>> >/> /
>> >/>> - The new LilyPond feature to em
2016-04-23 11:35 GMT+02:00 Andrew Bernard :
> Pardon my ignorance but why do you want to support a common subset? For what
> purpose? The whole point of Python 3 is that it breaks 2 in order to become a
> superior and more consistent langauge. It’s been out since 2008, an eternity
> in IT terms.
> So how do you define "the default"
As written before: What ships with the default installation.
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:22:23 +0200
Urs Liska wrote:
>/Am 22.04.2016 um 10:19 schrieb Johan Vromans:/
>/ >> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild. /
>/ > Good job! Thanks!/
>/ > /
>/ >> - The new LilyPond feature to embed source code files in the PDF/
>/ >> (LilyPond >= 2.19.39) ca
Noeck writes:
>>> Python 3 is already the default in the latest Ubuntu release.
>>
>> How do you figure that? I have an up-to-date Ubuntu and calling "python
>> --version" gives 2.7.11+.
>
> By default, I mean what is installed by default/ships with the default
> installation [1]. /usr/bin/pyth
>> Python 3 is already the default in the latest Ubuntu release.
>
> How do you figure that? I have an up-to-date Ubuntu and calling "python
> --version" gives 2.7.11+.
By default, I mean what is installed by default/ships with the default
installation [1]. /usr/bin/python will point to python2
Noeck writes:
> And I was not up-to-date in a previous mail: Python 3 is already the
> default in the latest Ubuntu release.
How do you figure that? I have an up-to-date Ubuntu and calling "python
--version" gives 2.7.11+.
--
David Kastrup
___
lily
On Sat 23 Apr 2016 at 22:09:55 (+0200), Noeck wrote:
> Hi,
>
> print 'foo' vs. print('foo') is usually the most frequent difference and
> writing code for a 'common subset' in most cases requires at least some
> from __future__ imports to ensure compatibility.
All my programs converted perfectly
On Sat, 23 Apr 2016, Noeck wrote:
And I was not up-to-date in a previous mail: Python 3 is already the
default in the latest Ubuntu release.
Fedora:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Python_3_as_Default
--
MT
___
lilypond-user mailing list
And I was not up-to-date in a previous mail: Python 3 is already the
default in the latest Ubuntu release.
Joram
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
2016-04-23 15:19 GMT+02:00 Federico Bruni :
> I guess that in 4 years Linux distros will "have to" (?) migrate to
> python3.
>
Currently new Debian packages written in Python 2 should be refused:
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-python3.html
Ciao,
Carlo
Hi,
print 'foo' vs. print('foo') is usually the most frequent difference and
writing code for a 'common subset' in most cases requires at least some
from __future__ imports to ensure compatibility.
However, the 2to3 tool is handy and there are very sane and good
guidelines for porting python code
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:22:23 +0200
Urs Liska wrote:
> Am 22.04.2016 um 10:19 schrieb Johan Vromans:
> >> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
> > Good job! Thanks!
> >
> >> - The new LilyPond feature to embed source code files in the PDF
> >> (LilyPond >= 2.19.39) can be used
Federico Bruni writes:
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 02:56:47PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Upgrading to a newer version of GCC stopped our release process from
>> working for several months. That's exactly the kind of "it should not
>> be a big deal" that you are talking about here.
>>
>
>
On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 02:56:47PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Upgrading to a newer version of GCC stopped our release process from
> working for several months. That's exactly the kind of "it should not
> be a big deal" that you are talking about here.
>
That's why the upgrades should be p
2016-04-22 7:55 GMT+02:00 Wilbert Berendsen :
> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
Precompiled application for (Mac) OS X are now available.
Download: http://frescobaldi.org/download
Best wishes.
Davide
___
lilypond-user mailing list
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Hi David,
>
> But lilypond ships its own internal version of python in
> …lilypond/usr/bin.
Assuming that you install from our precompiled binary packages.
Obviously, that's not what the developers do since they need to run
LilyPond right after compiling it. Also obviou
Hi David,
But lilypond ships its own internal version of python in …lilypond/usr/bin. Is
this not to shield lilypond from system versions?
In my Ubuntu I have:
$ uname -a
Linux fivefold 4.2.0-35-generic #40-Ubuntu SMP Tue Mar 15 22:15:45 UTC 2016
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ /usr/bin/pyth
Andrew Bernard writes:
>> On 23/04/2016, 6:33 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
>>>Well, unless there are really compelling reasons otherwise, sticking
>>>with a common subset (namely making it work with Python 3 while keeping
>>>it working with Python 2) would seem like the sanest option.
>
> Pardo
2016-04-22 7:55 GMT+02:00 Wilbert Berendsen :
> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
Precompiled application for (Mac) OS X coming in a few hours.
Best wishes.
Davide
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.
2016-04-22 19:08 GMT+02:00 Steve Noland :
> When do you expect it to appear in MacPorts?
I'm updating the Portfiles right now. After I submit them, I expect
the usual 1-3 days for approval.
Best wishes.
Davide
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-us
Pardon my ignorance but why do you want to support a common subset? For what
purpose? The whole point of Python 3 is that it breaks 2 in order to become a
superior and more consistent langauge. It’s been out since 2008, an eternity in
IT terms. Please help me understand.
Andrew
On 23/04/20
Andrew Bernard writes:
> Hi Martin,
>
> I have brought this topic up before, but it keeps getting knocked back
> by naysayers.
>
> I am volunteering to bring lilypond to Python 3. It would be helpful
> in many ways. Are there objections, folks?
Well, unless there are really compelling reasons ot
Hi Martin,
I have brought this topic up before, but it keeps getting knocked back by
naysayers.
I am volunteering to bring lilypond to Python 3. It would be helpful in many
ways. Are there objections, folks?
Andrew
On 23/04/2016, 4:49 PM, "Martin Tarenskeen" wrote:
>
>I know, the questio
Il giorno sab 23 apr 2016 alle 8:49, Martin Tarenskeen
ha scritto:
- Why isn't LilyPond bundled with at least Python 2.7? Are there any
known
issues with Python 2.7? It seems to work fine here on my Fedora box.
- If future versions of Frescobaldi will require Python3, wouldn't
that be
a g
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Paul Morris wrote:
Um, so... 2.19 still uses Qt4. In the future, version 3.0 will require
Qt5 (and Python3).
So future Frescobaldi 3.x version will require Python3.
Python scripts in the LilyPond package currently need Python2. On Linux
Fedora I'm running it with Pyth
Il giorno sab 23 apr 2016 alle 2:12, Andrew Bernard
ha scritto:
On Debian 8.4, the current git master builds after a long session
struggling to manually solve dependenices, and then when run, simply
unceremoniously dumps core. I have a pristine, newly installed Debian
8.4 jessie system.
If y
Hi Paul,
Thanks so much. I had somehow got it into my thick skull that Qt5 was required,
hence I got myself into a thorough mess. I note 2.19 uses python 2 and not
python 3 - also had me mixed up.
All now works.
Apologies for the noise, all.
Andrew
On 23/04/2016, 10:32 AM, "Paul Morris"
Hi Andrew,
> On Apr 22, 2016, at 8:12 PM, Andrew Bernard wrote:
>
> The 2.19 release seems premature. The contents of the tar file have code that
> clearly refers to Qt4.
Um, so... 2.19 still uses Qt4. In the future, version 3.0 will require Qt5
(and Python3).
Hope that helps,
-Paul
_
Hi Wilbert,
The 2.19 release seems premature. The contents of the tar file have code that
clearly refers to Qt4. On Debian 8.4, the current git master builds after a
long session struggling to manually solve dependenices, and then when run,
simply unceremoniously dumps core. I have a pristine,
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2016 alle 19:34, Federico Bruni
ha scritto:
$ python setup.py build
running build
running build_ext
Failed to determine Qt version ([Errno 2] No such file or directory).
I'm stuck here
Ok, I didn't check the sheebang in setup.py... so I did:
rm -r build/
python3 setup.py
Il giorno ven 22 apr 2016 alle 7:55, Wilbert Berendsen
ha scritto:
Then Frescobaldi 2.x will go in bugfix mode and development of new
features
will concentrate on Frescobaldi 3.0, which will require Python3 and
Qt5.
Qt5 looks good!
Wilbert, when I launch current master I get a warning about
Thanks for the new release. When do you expect it to appear in MacPorts?
Thanks,
Steve
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Am 22.04.2016 um 12:01 schrieb Simon Albrecht:
> Especially 800% zoom is very useful.
+1
___
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Thanks for all your hard work Wilbert! That's a lot of new features! This
app had become a staple for me.
Any idea when the manuscript viewer might be ready?
Best,
Abraham
On Thursday, April 21, 2016, Wilbert Berendsen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
On 22.04.2016 07:55, Wilbert Berendsen wrote:
Dear all,
Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
There are quite a lot improvements and some nice new features.
Bravo and thanks a lot! Especially 800% zoom is very useful.
Best, Simon
___
Am 22.04.2016 um 10:19 schrieb Johan Vromans:
>> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
> Good job! Thanks!
>
>> - The new LilyPond feature to embed source code files in the PDF
>> (LilyPond >= 2.19.39) can be used in publish mode and the custom engrave
>> dialog (#813)
> I must ha
> Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
Good job! Thanks!
> - The new LilyPond feature to embed source code files in the PDF
> (LilyPond >= 2.19.39) can be used in publish mode and the custom engrave
> dialog (#813)
I must have missed this in the discussions... What can I do with
Dear all,
Frescobaldi 2.19.0 has been released into the wild.
There are quite a lot improvements and some nice new features.
Download: http://frescobaldi.org/download
Please download and enjoy :-) And if you want to, update the translations,
there are some new user interface texts.
In a month o
65 matches
Mail list logo
