Hi Harm, hi Aaron,
thanks a million for your immediate help. Good to know that this will
continue working in 2.25.
Aaron, I don't entirely agree that this is obsolete... it shows a
mechanism that can be further expanded. It is also the base for
https://lsr.di.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=1000
and (even
>> In contrast to Jean, I have a different point of view. I think it
>> would be *very* valuable to have documentation strings of *all*
>> functions that might be useful in the long run
>
> Oh, that's also my point of view — it *would* be very valuable.
> Just... IMO not realistic. It already to
> In contrast to Jean, I have a different point of view. I think it
> would be *very* valuable to have documentation strings of *all*
> functions that might be useful in the long run
Oh, that's also my point of view — it *would* be very valuable.
Just... IMO not realistic. It already took me wee
> The naming of lilypond scheme functions can be really unintuitive
> sometimes. At the very least, the internals reference could use
> some major extensions making clear what the functions do and how,
> with examples. Via [1], it would have been impossible for me to
> understand what scorify-m
