\include "myfile.lyi"
Thus, there's absolutely no reason to change anything in the implementation of LilyPond. The only possible issue to discuss is if we should use this convention in the example in the manual. I have a similar favourite convention, namely to always use the suffix .lytex for latex documents to be input to lilypond-book.
/Mats
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from files to be included?
It would be nice to be able to do something like "lilypond *.ly" without getting errors about include-files.
(.lyi would be a natural extension, but I am open for suggestions)
-Rune
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
-- ============================================= Mats Bengtsson Signal Processing Signals, Sensors and Systems Royal Institute of Technology SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM Sweden Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463 Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe =============================================
_______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
