Comment #9 on issue 391 by joeneeman: using relative filepath in
\include "foo.ly"
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391
I'm not keen on having two different \include commands with subtly different
behaviour, especially if one of them is only around for historical reasons.
How about
this: I'll introduce a -d switch that changes the include behaviour and add
some docs
that recommend using this switch. At some compatibility-breaking point in
the future,
the switch will be removed and the relative includes will be the only way.
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this issue, or because you starred this issue.
You may adjust your issue notification preferences at:
http://code.google.com/hosting/settings
_______________________________________________
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
