[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > It's never been valid C, afaik. I've been correcting (ie, removing)
> > multi-line strings for quite some time.
> >
>
> I don't understand. What's so bad about doing something like:
>
> printf("%d,%d,"
> "%d,%d\n",
> 1, 2, 3, 4);
I think this discussion is getting off-topic for the lily list, but
the topic is not
"foo"
"bar\n"
as a way of writing "foobar\n" but,
"foo
bar"
as a way of writing "foo\nbar". We use lots of instances of "foo
bar", eg.
ADD_INTERFACE (Bar_line, "bar-line-interface",
"Bar line.
This is a request to print a special bar symbol. It replaces the
regular bar symbol with a special
symbol. The argument @var{bartype} is a string which specifies the
kind of bar to print. Options are @code{:|},
@code{|:}, @code{:|:},
@code{||}, @code{|.},
@code{.|}, and @code{.|.}.
These produce, respectively, a right repeat, a left repeat, a double
repeat, a double bar, a start bar, an end bar, and a thick double bar.
If @var{bartype} is set to @code{empty} then nothing is printed,
but a line break is allowed at that spot.
"
,
"bar-size-procedure kern thin-kern hair-thickness thick-thickness glyph
bar-size break-glyph-function");
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen/
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
