On Fri 09 Mar 2018 at 23:02:53 (+0100), Simon Albrecht wrote: > On 09.03.2018 17:13, David Wright wrote: > >>You can even use Frescobaldi's option "Automatically choose LilyPond version > >>from document". > >Ouch. I hadn't come across that one. Sounds really bad to me. > >a) you're not really in control of what's running, > > Huh? You can choose which of the LilyPond versions (that you have > installed) you make available to Frescobaldi. Then you start on a > project, and by typing the \version statement you also tell > Frescobaldi which LilyPond version to compile it with (assuming that > version is installed – fallback options are handled gracefully). In > the ‘terrible’ case that the version specified by the version > statement or the one chosen by Frescobaldi isn’t the one you wanted > to compile it with, you’d be able to see in the log panel. > I don’t see any problem with that.
When the problem under discussion appears to be one of versioning, it doesn't seem a wise course of action to add one more method of having version changes made under ones feet. > >b) what happening when all the includes have different version numbers, > > Frescobaldi will always go after the first one. In the case cited, the problem started when the OP was running old source files. If there were includes of, say, a user's collection of .ily files, then one is inviting more wasted runs due to "program too old" errors. > >c) it sends a misleading message to a naive user that \version > > statements are meant to*do* something, when that is not their function. > > > >Just for interest, here are the version statements from the files > >installed by lilypond-2.19.80-1.linux-64.sh > > > >\version "2.14.0" > >\version "2.16.0" > >\version "2.17.25" > >\version "2.17.6" > >\version "2.18.2" > >\version "2.19.16" > >\version "2.19.22" > >\version "2.19.25" > >\version "2.19.29" > >\version "2.19.46" > >\version "2.19.80" > > Development policy states that the \version statements will only be > updated when the file is actually changed. So all this means is that > some .ly file in the source code has been around without change > since 2.14.0, some were updated quite recently, etc. Yes, I was aware of that. The point I was making was that any collection of *ly files is likely to contain a variety of version statements, and the one selected from a particular source file might not be appropriate for all the files that get compiled in that run. Cheers, David. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
