David Kastrup writes:
> Nicolas Sceaux writes:
>
>> I'd be insterested to see an implementation of a single
>> `define-markup-command' for builtin and user defined markups, where
>> user defined commands do not pollute the (lily) module, and still are
>> available across file includes.
>>
>> If
On 11/22/09 2:47 AM, "Nicolas Sceaux" wrote:
>
>> It is not a "little inconvenience" if internals are defined in a
>> different, undocumented way that apparently only a single developer
>> understands and realizes.
>
> This comment would have been valid a few hours before, but it's not
> any
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 22 nov. 2009 à 00:00, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>
>>> I'd be insterested to see an implementation of a single
>>> `define-markup-command' for builtin and user defined markups, where
>>> user defined commands do not pollute the (lily) module, and still are
>>> available
Le 22 nov. 2009 à 00:00, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> I'd be insterested to see an implementation of a single
>> `define-markup-command' for builtin and user defined markups, where
>> user defined commands do not pollute the (lily) module, and still are
>> available across file includes.
>
> Ther
Nicolas Sceaux writes:
> Le 21 nov. 2009 à 17:32, David Kastrup a écrit :
>
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>>> I still don't like the divergence between define-markup-command and
>>> define-internal-markup-command.
>>
>> Agree. I think define-internal-markup-command makes for more readable
>> co
Le 21 nov. 2009 à 17:32, David Kastrup a écrit :
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> I still don't like the divergence between define-markup-command and
>> define-internal-markup-command.
>
> Agree. I think define-internal-markup-command makes for more readable
> code. If we can consider define-inte
Carl Sorensen writes:
> I still don't like the divergence between define-markup-command and
> define-internal-markup-command.
Agree. I think define-internal-markup-command makes for more readable
code. If we can consider define-internal-markup-command to be used
_only_ in the distributed Lilyp
On 11/17/09 1:32 PM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
>> I appreciate your work on this.
>>
>> However, I am *not* in favor of moving in this direction to solve the
>> problems you correctly identified.
>>
>> In my mind, the *last* thing we need is another opaque interface
Carl Sorensen writes:
> I appreciate your work on this.
>
> However, I am *not* in favor of moving in this direction to solve the
> problems you correctly identified.
>
> In my mind, the *last* thing we need is another opaque interface in
> LilyPond, where in the markup command we don't know whet
Le 17 nov. 2009 à 19:00, Carl Sorensen a écrit :
> David,
>
> I appreciate your work on this.
>
> However, I am *not* in favor of moving in this direction to solve the
> problems you correctly identified.
>
> In my mind, the *last* thing we need is another opaque interface in
> LilyPond, where
David,
I appreciate your work on this.
However, I am *not* in favor of moving in this direction to solve the
problems you correctly identified.
In my mind, the *last* thing we need is another opaque interface in
LilyPond, where in the markup command we don't know whether a certain
property is to
---
scm/define-markup-commands.scm |3 +--
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scm/define-markup-commands.scm b/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
index 08c24bb..fec895d 100644
--- a/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
+++ b/scm/define-markup-commands.scm
@@ -732,7 +732,6 @@
12 matches
Mail list logo
