On 2012-10-06 06:33, lemzw...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py
File python/book_latex.py (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py#newcode88
python/book_latex.py:88: \\iffalse.*\\fi))''',
On 2012/10/06
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2012-10-06 06:33, lemzw...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py#newcode88
python/book_latex.py:88: \\iffalse.*\\fi))''',
As David has commented on the list, I would prefer if you
So, your opinion is that lilypond-book SHOULD process the
\lilypond{...} code inside the \iffalse section and spectacularly
fail.
It is debatable how much plain TeX code should be used at all in a
LaTeX document. Just think of a latex-html translation.
With my colleagues, I have never seen
Hmm. Somehow the commit message doesn't seem self-explanatory enough to
me, but i fail to formulate why i have this feeling.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Try to add a regression test example with a valid lilypond block
inbetween two multiline comments.
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py
File python/book_latex.py (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py#newcode88
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py
File python/book_latex.py (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/6584073/diff/1/python/book_latex.py#newcode88
python/book_latex.py:88: \\iffalse.*\\fi))''',
On 2012/10/06 02:12:41, Julien Rioux wrote:
.* should be replaced by
