Hi Simon and Craig,
I think it's a good point. And since maybe I'll have to suffer more than
anyone else ;-) I shouldn't wring my hands too much and just go for that.
There will be a Git tag referencing the latest state of the "old"
interface, and it should be possible to use that for existing projects.
Of course when someone wants to make use of the additional functionality
they'd have to update their projects but for others this should at least
work as long as LilyPond progress won't make things incompatible.
Best
Urs
Am 01.07.2018 um 00:04 schrieb Craig Dabelstein:
I'm happy to go with the consensus. Breaking any of my old documents
won't be an issue for me, and I'm happy to defer to your expertise.
Craig
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 at 23:13, Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de
<mailto:simon.albre...@mail.de>> wrote:
On 30.06.2018 14:14, Urs Liska wrote:
> # Encourage people to use the new system and "deprecate" the old
syntax
> (but leave it alone and working). The downside is that the
*names* of
> the old commands are very much what one would want, so I
wouldn't want
> to discard them completely.
> # Make the old names wrappers around the new technology, so one can
> still say \criticalRemark.
I’d vote for the latter. Better to make a clean cut, and there’s
so much
potential in this, and the number of users seems to be limited
until now
in my perspective – I may be wrong.
Best, Simon
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org <mailto:lilypond-user@gnu.org>
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
--
*Craig Dabelstein*
Maxime's Music
craig.dabelst...@gmail.com <mailto:craig.dabelst...@gmail.com>
/http://maximesmusic.com/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
