Werner LEMBERG wl at gnu.org writes:
I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
to themselves, never mind units.
Sensible.
+1. However, it should be documented, together with the work-around.
It was only a couple months ago that David allowed 3\cm to be used as
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
Werner LEMBERG wl at gnu.org writes:
I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
to themselves, never mind units.
Sensible.
+1. However, it should be documented, together with the work-around.
It was only a couple months
2012/10/8 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
Werner LEMBERG wl at gnu.org writes:
I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
to themselves, never mind units.
Sensible.
+1. However, it should be documented, together with the
Thomas Morley thomasmorle...@googlemail.com writes:
2012/10/8 David Kastrup d...@gnu.org:
Keith OHara k-ohara5...@oco.net writes:
Werner LEMBERG wl at gnu.org writes:
I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
to themselves, never mind units.
Sensible.
+1.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Thomas Morley
thomasmorle...@googlemail.com wrote:
Speaking as a user:
I never used 3\cm (don't like it), but I know others did (in \paper ).
So no objection from me, and there will be the workaround.
Wait, does David suggest to change things so that we won't
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Thomas Morley
thomasmorle...@googlemail.com wrote:
Speaking as a user:
I never used 3\cm (don't like it), but I know others did (in \paper ).
So no objection from me, and there will be the workaround.
Wait,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:40 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Wait, does David suggest to change things so that we won't be able to
write \paper { indent = 2\cm } ?
No, he doesn't.
Or does the suggested change concern something else?
Hi,
I am trying to get into somewhat consistent music function behavior.
Some argument types for music functions inherently require lookahead:
simple music expressions like c4 (since you can still add -\accent at
will), symbol chains (like Bottom as it may be followed by
. Accidental), durations
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
In general, not requiring lookahead makes things more versatile.
[...]
thanks - i think i more or less understand why we prefer not to
require lookahead.
However, i'm not sure whether you are asking us for any opinion
Janek Warchoł janek.lilyp...@gmail.com writes:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:11 PM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
[...]
In general, not requiring lookahead makes things more versatile.
[...]
thanks - i think i more or less understand why we prefer not to
require lookahead.
However,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 12:46 AM, David Kastrup d...@gnu.org wrote:
I am considering removing existing functionality that's not likely to
have seen any use so far, but at least is nailed down in regtests
(input/regression/optional-args-backup.ly). So I am looking for
objections.
ok. I think
I lean towards letting numbers in function arguments just evaluate
to themselves, never mind units. In particular integers are used
quite often in manners where a unit behavior of identifiers would
be rather more than less surprising.
+1. However, it should be documented, together with the
12 matches
Mail list logo
