Re: file extensions

2003-09-16 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > We already changed system includes to -init.ly, after which we > > realized that this breaks compatibility slightly, and is more of > > nuisance to type. > > Yeah. Has this anything to do with using .ily instead of .ly ? Yes, it is the sa

Re: file extensions

2003-09-15 Thread Jan Nieuwenhuizen
Rune Zedeler writes: > Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension > convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from > files to be included? Good idea. Jan. -- Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter http://www.xs4

Re: file extensions

2003-09-15 Thread Rune Zedeler
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: We already changed system includes to -init.ly, after which we realized that this breaks compatibility slightly, and is more of nuisance to type. Yeah. Has this anything to do with using .ily instead of .ly ? -Rune ___ Lilypon

Re: file extensions

2003-09-15 Thread Han-Wen Nienhuys
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Mats Bengtsson wrote: > > You can do it today! > > Yes, I know. > What I am requesting is /conventions/. (including renaming all the paper20.ly to > paper20.ily, etc.) We already changed system includes to -init.ly, after which we realized that this breaks compatibili

Re: file extensions

2003-09-15 Thread Rune Zedeler
Mats Bengtsson wrote: You can do it today! Yes, I know. What I am requesting is /conventions/. (including renaming all the paper20.ly to paper20.ily, etc.) -Rune ___ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/li

Re: file extensions

2003-09-15 Thread Mats Bengtsson
You can do it today! Just name your include files *.lyi and use \include "myfile.lyi" Thus, there's absolutely no reason to change anything in the implementation of LilyPond. The only possible issue to discuss is if we should use this convention in the example in the manual. I have a similar favo

Re: file extensions

2003-09-14 Thread Rune Zedeler
Graham Percival wrote: The problem is that, AFAIK, there is no difference in the file format between include-files and non-include files. (apart from the lack of a \score{} section in include files) I don't see why that is a "problem". You could argue the same with .c and .h files or with .ps and

file extensions

2003-09-14 Thread Rune Zedeler
Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from files to be included? It would be nice to be able to do something like "lilypond *.ly" without getting errors about include-files. (.lyi would be a natural exte

Re: file extensions

2003-09-14 Thread Graham Percival
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:34:46 +0200 Rune Zedeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension > convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from > files to be included? The problem is that, AFAIK, there is no difference in the f

file extensions

2003-09-14 Thread Rune Zedeler
Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from files to be included? It would be nice to be able to do something like "lilypond *.ly" without getting errors about include-files. (.lyi would be a natural extensi