Eluze <elu...@gmail.com> writes: > David Kastrup wrote >> Eluze < > >> eluzew@ > >> > writes: >> >>> (sorry I can't remember exactly where that was) I tried a new patch to >>> get >>> rid of these numerous backups: >>> >>> -k --clean-numbered-backup - "clean numbered backups >>> [filename.ext.~number~]" >>> >> As you said: this is easy to do with shell patterns anyway. Easier >> [than] to look up a rarely used option, and more flexible (you can do >> it for one or multiple files). > > that's possible, too. > > eg. you can write convert-ly -beck *.ly > or > convert-ly --clean-numbered-backup test1.ly test5.ly
And then I would be afraid that it would do something besides cleaning up the backups, some conversion or so. When using rm *.ly.~* I know exactly what will happen. >> So I'd lean towards not doing anything here. >>> >>> during the discussion about numbered backups I discovered that you can >>> easily write "convert-ly -beck" whereas I used to write -b -e -c -k - [...] >>> in the end of the chapter *2.3 Command line options for convert-ly* >> >> This is usually assumed to be common knowledge, but of course it's >> "common knowledge" mostly with people accustomed to Unix. > > and I'm not one of those > > altogether I'm not insisting in adding this feature, it's just a proposal. I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the feature. With regard to the documentation: that would make sense. I did not object to that, merely explained why nobody might have thought of mentioning it before. I'd have said that one should not just restrict this to convert-ly, but at least lilypond and lilypond-book have so few parameterless options that it seems hardly worth the trouble to mention that possibility with them. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
