On 21 February 2010 20:23, Mark Polesky <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'd prefer the former, since maintaining the integrity of > the program is a higher priority for me. I'm not a huge fan > of syntax shortcuts, implicit instantiation, etc. I imagine > these sorts of things can lead to problems down the road. Thanks, Mark. I'm inclined to agree, but in this case it would have a detrimental effect on the docs, since I'd have to change the simple ottava example (which James has just improved) to prevent the extra stave appearing. I might be exaggerating when I say the alternative is hackish. It's a cheeky trick, though could come in quite useful since it saves having to create C++ code (it's almost like having a scheme interface for iterators). Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
