On Monday 30 July 2007, Chris Cannam wrote:
> can currently only be set by the user; SLUR_ABOVE and STEM_UP are
> normally computed but can be overridden by the user;
Reminds me, did we every come up for anything on how our stems want to differ
from LilyPond's, and sometimes the only way to get a
On Saturday 28 July 2007 01:04, M. Donalies wrote:
> In NotationProperties, the following are defined globally (same
> across notation views):
> HEIGHT_ON_STAFF;
> NOTE_STYLE;
> BEAMED;
> BEAM_ABOVE;
> SLASHES;
> STEM_UP;
> USE_CAUTIONARY_ACCIDENTAL;
> OTTAVA_SHIFT;
> SLUR_ABOVE;
In my previous em
On Wednesday 25 July 2007 13:45, M. Donalies wrote:
> 1) Why is HEIGHT_ON_STAFF defined both in BaseProperties.cpp and in
> NotationProperties.cpp? What does it mean that it's defined in both
> places?
It's almost certainly a mistake. I don't recall the history of its
whereabouts. It's interest
I'm about to resend to the list a handful of emails (three I think) that I
sent last week but SourceForge bounced.
They were all cc'd to individuals as well so you may find you've already seen
them. If you haven't, they probably won't be very interesting to you anyway.
But anyway, just for c
[resending bounced email from last week]
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Qt4, was Re: [Rosegarden-devel] semi-working tablature for anyone
who's interested
Date: Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:30
From: Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc:
[resending bounced email from last week]
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-devel] Trying to add Preview with LilyPond into
NotationView (again)
Date: Wednesday 25 July 2007 15:50
From: Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Heikki Johannes Junes" <[EMAIL PROTECTE
[resending bounced email from last week]
-- Forwarded Message --
Subject: Re: [Rosegarden-devel] semi-working tablature for anyone who's
interested
Date: Wednesday 25 July 2007 16:30
From: Chris Cannam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Cc: Alessand
On Thursday 26 July 2007 22:42, M. Donalies wrote:
> But on the up-side, it's a good time to weed out some of the
> constructs that were designed without consideration of tablature or
> percussion. And we might even get that elusive grand staff. :)
Yes, exactly.
> Are you thinking of going with a
