Hi David, I'm a little confused. What problems was David talking about, I didn't follow. So we shouldn't use this boxed notation approach, or we should but with caveats?
Thanks, Ben > > That regression test tampered with internals of LilyPond in a manner > that broke session integrity (any changes propagated to further files > processed on the command line). It likely still does. The internals > changed in the mean time. > > It was probably a mistake to ever include this regtest. It just gives > people bad ideas. > > -- > David Kastrup > It is possible to get this working with 2.16 on up. You just need to rewrite a few things after the changes done to the regression test on which the file is based. I'm attaching a revision of the file which won't raise the errors you saw, but it is not a solution to the problems that David Kastrup mentions. Best, David N. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user frameEngraver4.ly (13K) <http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/attachment/136166/0/frameEngraver4.ly> ----- composer | sound designer -- View this message in context: http://lilypond.1069038.n5.nabble.com/Aleatoric-modern-notation-tp18113p136170.html Sent from the User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
