Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Comment #14 on issue 391 by pnorcks: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Ian, Have you tried 2.12.2? This new feature may have barely missed 2.12.1. relative-includes is certainly an option with 2.13.0. -- You received this me

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Comment #13 on issue 391 by i...@hulin.org.uk: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Just noticed this one, No mention of the relative-includes option in 2.12 terminal output for lilypond -dhelp. Valentin, is this a separate issu

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Updates: Status: Verified Cc: -hanwenn Comment #12 on issue 391 by v.villenave: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 OK, the option is called -drelative-includes and is currently set to #f by default. Uh, since

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Updates: Status: Fixed Labels: fixed_2_12_0 Comment #11 on issue 391 by joeneeman: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 (No comment was entered for this change.) -- You received this message because you are listed

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Comment #10 on issue 391 by v.villenave: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Does that imply that we would also have the corresponding ly:set-option? If so, I happily vote for it :-) -- You received this message because you a

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Comment #9 on issue 391 by joeneeman: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 I'm not keen on having two different \include commands with subtly different behaviour, especially if one of them is only around for historical reasons.

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Comment #8 on issue 391 by v.villenave: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 I'm concerned that this may break existing code in large projects (such as Nicolas'). Would it be possible to have a switch to enable and disable this

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Updates: Cc: hanwenn Comment #7 on issue 391 by joeneeman: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Any opinion on this, Han-Wen? I'm pretty sure this new behaviour would be the cpp behaviour. -- You received this message

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Updates: Status: Started Comment #6 on issue 391 by joeneeman: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 A patch is available here: http://codereview.appspot.com/10450/show This patch changes the current behaviour of \include

Re: Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

On 3 Oct 2007, at 22:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 A similar question showed up in the case of Bison for the use of skeleton files. There, it was decided that when the include is in

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Comment #5 by mlewissmith: What do you mean about the nonstandard behaviour cf C preprocessor? From `info cpp': `#include "FILE"' This variant is used for header files of your ow

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Comment #4 by hanwenn: (No comment was entered for this change.) Issue attribute updates: Labels: -Type-Defect Type-Enhancement -- You received this message because you are l

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Comment #3 by hanwenn: the nested includes are allowed, it´s that paths are not taken relative to the location of the currently parsed file. Adding a ly:option is a good idea; I'd glad

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Comment #2 by v.villenave: This is surprising: I thought nested includes were allowed in C... If I remember correctly, quite a few languages allow nested includes though (particularly in

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 Comment #1 by hanwenn: This is rather nonstandard behavior if you compare with eg. the C preprocessor. I recommend using the --include flag. Issue attribute updates: Summary:

Issue 391 in lilypond: using relative filepath in \include " foo.ly"

Issue 391: using relative filepath in \include "foo.ly" http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391 New issue report by gpermus: It would be nice if the filenames inside \include "" were relative to the file that contained that \include. (or possibly using a different command like \i