[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > But this is getting complicated. IMHO the only important difference is between > O(1) and O(# of bars), the rest is just cosmetics. > > (and I hope the barCheckSynchronize can be defaulted to #t sometime in the > future if it works fine, barcheck failures is not exactly something you plan > to do :) )
With the new check, I suppose barCheckSynchronize is no longer necessary, we can do away with it entirely. This will be a slight problem for people that relied on its behavior for faking partial measures. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ Bug-lilypond mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
