On 7/28/10 4:49 AM, "Ian Hulin" <i...@hulin.org.uk> wrote: > Hi Reinhold, > On 28/07/10 01:43, reinhold.kainho...@gmail.com wrote: >> Reviewers: Neil Puttock, >> >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001 >> File ly/init.ly (right): >> >> http://codereview.appspot.com/1901042/diff/2001/3001#newcode26 >> ly/init.ly:26: #(if (ly:get-option 'user-init) >> 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)? > How about --user-startup or --custom-startup? > > The real problem you have here is that we use --init option to supersede > the whole startup/initialization file. This one is an additional one to > do just for this user session, so user-startup says what it does on the can.
How about --extra-init, or --include-init ? Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
