On 1/14/06, Fairchild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Please explain. Maybe post the beginning of the thread, which seems to be > missing from the archives - or has a different subject line. > > Thanks. > > - Bruce > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Trevor Baca > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:49 PM > To: Han-Wen Nienhuys > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; lilypond-user@gnu.org; Nicolas Sceaux > Subject: Re: Music function arguments > > > On 12/14/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Trevor Bača wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I agree, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of flips > > > over to the manual while inputting. > > > > > > Of course, it probably would be better for *everything* to be > > > > > > \command "arg" > > > > > > removing the kinda alien-looking (if you're not a scheme programmer) > > > > ACtually, this turned out to be trivial to do. I'm not sure why I > > didn't do it earlier. > > Well hallelujah. This part of the peanut gallery says go for it before the > userbase gets any bigger (resulting in more backwards compatability > complaints).
Hi Bruce, Check for a thread originally entitled "Invisible notes, Scheme contexts" starting on 12 December 2005. Don Blaheta authored the first post, and the thread runs through a large number of topics. Trevor. -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
