1 Sep 08:42 2004

### Re: Proposed patch: Unroll installation loops

Matthias Neeracher writes:

> lilypond uses the $(foreach) facility of gnumake in several places in > its installation. While I'm sure this is a little bit more efficient, > it creates problems on MacOS, where due to the fink build setup, paths > are often about 30 characters longer: Since foreach creates a single > shell line for the whole installation command, the resulting line > sometimes exceeded the maximum permissible argument size. What shell are you using? Have you considered sending a bug report for the shell? Jan. -- -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org  1 Sep 10:20 2004 ### Re: Proposed patch: Unroll installation loops  On Aug 31, 2004, at 11:42 PM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > Matthias Neeracher writes: > >> lilypond uses the$(foreach) facility of gnumake in several places in
>> its installation. While I'm sure this is a little bit more efficient,
>> it creates problems on MacOS, where due to the fink build setup, paths
>> are often about 30 characters longer: Since foreach creates a single
>> shell line for the whole installation command, the resulting line
>> sometimes exceeded the maximum permissible argument size.
>
> What shell are you using?

bash, although at the time I did this patch, it might have been zsh

>  Have you considered sending a bug report for the shell?

Your message actually prompted me to retry without the patch, and right
now I can't reproduce the failure. However, I'm sure that it would
return the second I omitted the patch

If I may ask conversely, what is there to be gained from using
$(foreach) ? It seems that the output produced by for is a little bit more compact and readable, and the results are identical. Matthias  1 Sep 11:34 2004 ### Re: Proposed patch: Unroll installation loops Matthias Neeracher writes: > bash, although at the time I did this patch, it might have been zsh I'm sure. It is a bug for any GNU software to impose arbitrary limits. > If I may ask conversely, what is there to be gained from using >$(foreach) ?  It seems that the output produced by for is a little
> bit more compact and readable, and the results are identical.

The patch is fine; until we all run GNU it's impractical to ignore
other broken softwares, if they can be so easily supported...

Jan.

--

--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

1 Sep 19:15 2004

### feature request: lilypond and stdin


Hi,

I'm wandering if the feature of reading from stdin (and maybe writing to
stdout) could be added to the upcoming 3.0.

Cheers,

Pedro

1 Sep 20:23 2004

### Re: Proposed patch: Unroll installation loops

neeracher <at> mac.com writes:
> return the second I omitted the patch
>
> If I may ask conversely, what is there to be gained from using
> \$(foreach) ? It seems that the output produced by for is a little bit
> more compact and readable, and the results are identical.

It was actually prompted by some incompatibility in bash long ago,
IIRC. I can't remember the details.

>
> Matthias
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-devel mailing list
> lilypond-devel <at> gnu.org
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel

--

--

Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   hanwen <at> xs4all.nl   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

1 Sep 20:24 2004

### feature request: lilypond and stdin

kroegerlistas <at> pedrokroeger.net writes:
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm wandering if the feature of reading from stdin (and maybe writing to
> stdout) could be added to the upcoming 3.0.

writing to stdout is slightly hairy, especially if there are multiple
output files, so I am not fond of this feature. stdin already works
over here.

--
Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   hanwen <at> xs4all.nl   |   http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen

1 Sep 20:25 2004

### Re: feature request: lilypond and stdin

Pedro Kroger writes:

> I'm wandering if the feature of reading from stdin (and maybe writing to
> stdout) could be added to the upcoming 3.0.

This is an old feature: It should mostly work unless something new is broken.

Jan.

--

--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke <at> gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien       | http://www.lilypond.org

1 Sep 15:01 2004

### improving multibar rests


I suggest to add something like

\times 10/8 R4*5*4 |

to the docs as an example how to produce a multibar rest within an odd
rhythm.

Werner

1 Sep 15:13 2004

### improving the doc appearance


I ask the docmeister to do the following in the texinfo input files,
improving the appearance of the output if viewed with info' (gee,
there are still dolts like me who do that

. Remove multiple spaces between words.  Things like

this is  stretched     text

appear as-is.  I suggest to have two spaces after a sentence
ending (which makes the input file easier to edit with Emacs), but
this isn't necessary.

. Remove all unnecessary indentation.  For example, don't do this:

this is a text
which has some
unnecessary indentation --

note that this also is valid for

<at> example
example
blocks
like this example
<at> end example

but this (starting in the first column):

this is a text


1 Sep 22:20 2004

### Re: entering music without \time



> To me it makes sense to notate bar lengths by example (i like in
> general when you can show what you mean by example; that way you
> don't have to learn a new complicated syntax).
>
> But there is a major problem: How would you tell the difference
> between e.g.  3/4 and 6/8?

With a property you could define a default which can always be
overridden with \time.

Werner
`

Gmane