On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 02:47:43PM +0000, Cláudia Soares wrote: > > On 2009/03/28, at 13:46, Graham Percival wrote: >> >> Also, convert-ly requires decorator functions (I think that was >> the name), which are another 2.4 feature. >> > decorators are another issue. No back compatibility in python < 2.4. > Sometimes I wonder why are we coding python if it changes so much...
Heh. Not to mention the changes in python 3.0! :) > Does Guido expects that we keep rewriting our old work over and over > again? I expect so... then again, lilypond breaks backwards compatibility (without it even working in convert-ly) more often than I'd like, so I can't precisely complain about this. > Thank you, you've been quite helpful. I hope I can contribute on this. If > lilypond-book manages to get well&easily installed in the mac systems > maybe the big bunch of musicians and mac users start to switch to > lilypond, namely to prepare lesson materials or simple texts with musical > ideas. This latex lilypond integration is a very good concept. I'd quite like it to work easily on OSX, although I think that convert-ly is much more important than lilypond-book -- any OSX user who uses LaTeX will have no problem manually changing the #!/usr/bin/foo although they will rightly be annoyed by it. However, there are many OSX users who *aren't* so technically inclined as to use LaTeX, and they *will* have difficulty changing the line in convert-ly. Of course, those users would still need to install python from macports or fink. I really think that shipping python 2.4 is the best solution, but this obviously requires much more work on GUB. :| Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
