On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:43:08AM +0000, reinhold.kainho...@gmail.com wrote: > On 2010/07/27 20:16:58, Neil Puttock wrote: >> user-include ? > > Hmm, actually, I don't like either user-init (indicates it's part of the > init sequence and has similar uses as the --init command line option; > also it sounds too technical) nor user-include (to me that sounds like > setting an include path)... > > How about custom-definitions or user-definitions (no, sounds too much > like it defines users)?
Don't forget that this is aimed at lilypond users, not C programmers -- they're used to seeing&writing \include "". I can't imagine many people getting confused with an include path. I suppose you could use file-include or include-file if you prefer, but I definitely encourage using "include" somewhere in the option name. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
