On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 at 06:06, Carl Sorensen <carl.d.soren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I vote for adjusting the code so that it follows the documentation, > > probably by adding `forceTimeSignature` and `forceKeySignature` > > properties, both for orthogonality and a way to retain backward > > compatibility. > > > > I vote for initially just fixing the code -- use scm_equal_p instead of > scm_is_eq > > At that point, we'd be consistent with the documentation. > > If there is a use case for 'forceTimeSignature' then I suppose we could > create it, but it seems to me like YAGNI. My preference would be to leave things as they are (and update the documentation), or, if not that, then follow Werner's suggestion. I have sometimes needed to reprint a time signature even if it wasn't different. Kevin
