On Wednesday 13 October 2004 10.22, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
> >>It just seems to me that maintaining \lilypond{} is more trouble than
> >>it's worth.
> >
> > I think it just broke because of the lilypond-book rewrite, and the
> > decision to require [fragment] explicitly.
>
> The problem with matching the correct right hand curly brace must be
> much older than so.
The difference is that in 2.2, the following is valid code:
\documentclass{article}
\begin{document}
\lilypond{ c d e f }
\end{document}
I.e., it seems that \lilypond somehow was [fragment] by default in 2.2.5. This
is really what it was intended for also, really short snippets of music.
> We get an incompatibility problem both if we change to \verb style
> syntax and if we remove the support for \lilypond{...} all together.
>
> What about the lazy solution to simply document the limitation of the
> current \lilypond{...} implementation and give the advice to use
> \begin{lilypond}...\end{lilypond} for examples that contain curly
> braces?
One way to maintain decent compatibility would be to just allow things like
\lilypond{c d e f}
but disallow more complex constructs with nested {}. \lilypond is only for
short non-complex snippets anyway.
I suppose that this would be achieved if \lilypond would come with the option
[fragment] turned on by default, I don't see why anyone ever would want to
use \lilypond without that option anyways.
Erik
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
