[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 48 and 72 ET
From: |
Hans Åberg |
Subject: |
Re: 48 and 72 ET |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:19:19 +0100 |
> On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:05, address@hidden wrote:
>
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I'll stick with my "that doesn't even make sense" verdict, thank you
>> very much.
>
> Don't ask the question if you're going to attack the answer. Your
> contributions to LilyPond development don't excuse you from practicing
> basic civility.
Though it is a good question: why don't people run convert-ly when they know
how to fix it by hand? Perhaps the process should be automated somehow. If
LilyPond knows how to run the code via convert-ly, why does it not do it?
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, (continued)
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Urs Liska, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, mskala, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET,
Hans Åberg <=
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Simon Albrecht, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, mskala, 2017/02/09
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, David Kastrup, 2017/02/10
- Re: 48 and 72 ET, Hans Åberg, 2017/02/10