Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
However, that's one thing that I'm never going to tackle. If anybody
wants to attempt it, great! But the IR is officially out of bounds of
GDP.
Perhaps you can just send out a wish list, hoping that some Scheme hacker
finds it an interesting pr
Graham Percival wrote:
True. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that I have no clue how
the IR is constructed -- if I _did_ understand it, we could probably
make a few changes that would make the whole thing considerably easier
to read.
However, that's one thing that I'm never going t
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Graham Percival wrote:
NR is a reference to look stuff up; LM is for learning the material
in the first place.
Agreed! However, what's special with LilyPond is that it's three
levels, not two. Often for me, the IR is the real reference to look
stuff up. The division betw
Graham Percival wrote:
Yes, with one quirk: the LM/NR division.
The current "changing defaults" doesn't make anybody happy. It's too
verbose for programmers (or people who are already familiar with it,
but can't remember certain details), but much too short for first-time
readers. So we'r
Graham Percival wrote on 08 November 2007 12:26
>
> Trevor Daniels wrote:
> >> Actually, \fatText _is_ simply an arcane override
> >> > -- but one which the
> >> > developers thought was so common that they
> >> > included a predefined
> >> > variable.
> >
> > The difference exactly. Tha
Mats Bengtsson wrote:
Isn't the main points of this discussion that: - Predefined commands
like \fatText should be described in the NR. Even if the
implementation of it might change over the years, the semantics will
remain the same.
Yes. "\fatText: pushes the next note to the right to allow
Isn't the main points of this discussion that:
- Predefined commands like \fatText should be described in the NR.
Even if the implementation of it might change over the years, the
semantics
will remain the same.
- Somewhere in the NR, it should be described how an advanced user
can find the e
Trevor Daniels wrote:
Actually, \fatText _is_ simply an arcane override
> -- but one which the
> developers thought was so common that they
> included a predefined
> variable.
The difference exactly. That's why I think this
predefined variable should be in the main text.
No, absolutel
2007/9/22, Trevor Bača <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 9/21/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Should we keep @refcommands independent from @commonprop ? For example,
> > look at Tuplets. Do you like it as it is, or should we move
> >
> > \tupletUp \tupletDown etc
> >
> > inside the "Co
On 9/21/07, Graham Percival <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should we keep @refcommands independent from @commonprop ? For example,
> look at Tuplets. Do you like it as it is, or should we move
>
> \tupletUp \tupletDown etc
>
> inside the "Commonly tweaked properties" ?
I vote for combine.
--
Should we keep @refcommands independent from @commonprop ? For example,
look at Tuplets. Do you like it as it is, or should we move
\tupletUp \tupletDown etc
inside the "Commonly tweaked properties" ?
Cheers,
- Graham
___
lilypond-user mailing li
11 matches
Mail list logo
