"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes: > Not really an objection; just a thought. I can't comment on the > technicalities, and I've every confidence you can carry this through, > but I wonder about the position of existing compositions that include > custom C++ engravers in the old (i.e. current) style.
If people write C++ code as part of their compositions, they really don't have any expectation of it going to compile with any LilyPond version other than what they wrote the C++ code for. > I guess there will be very few of these, My guess is exactly zero when not considering Mike, and even when considering Mike, I don't think he'd expect to just plunk C++ code into a new version and have it work unchanged. > but it would be a shame if they were to be limited to 2.18 stable > without a rewrite. When writing C++ code, you are limited to _very_ close versions of whatever you wrote the C++ code for. > Might it be better to move forward to 2.20 before doing this so they > could take advantage of all the 2.19 improvements in a stable release? I'm pretty sure that we are not talking about the same thing, and I am not even sure what you are actually thinking about. From the Scheme side, I don't see that anything would change in manners that are not upwards-compatible. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
