On 1/2/10 1:51 AM, "Graham Percival" <gra...@percival-music.ca> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 8:34 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes:
>>
>>>> only with \overrideTimeSignatureSettings, but not with
>>>> \override timeSignatureSettings.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is. Fixing this has been planned for a year.
>>>
>>> Why not "just do it" now? Well, we don't have a definite answer
>>> for what to change it _to_, and we get enough grief for changing
>>> the syntax.
>>
>> I don't count something as "changing the syntax" if it does not change
>> the parser and no previously valid code becomes invalid. Which, as far
>> as I understand, would be the case here.
>
> Sorry, I was thinking about \overrideBeamSettings, which has been
> around for a few months (a year?). You're quite right; there's no
> reason not to change \overrideTimeSignatureSettings now.
Actually, I intend to propose that \overrideBeamSettings be replaced with
\xxxTimeSignatureSettings (which should be acceptable because
\overrideBeamSettings is not part of a stable release).
Thanks,
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
