Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:14 PM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: >> It seems somewhat underhanded to just silently change all the example >> files and docs, and just mention in the changelog that the old syntax >> remains supported. But I don't see that talking more excessively about >> the "old" syntax and its legacy support is helping anybody. > > Well, you could add a @knownissues to the lilypond-book docs > mentioning the deprecated syntax.
It's not really an issue that old files with a different syntax happen to continue to work. And this back compatibility has no known downsides. > If you're thinking about users, then no, we officially have No > Sympathy (tm) for people who use unstable versions without reading the > Changes. :) I guess if the old syntax is to be deprecated (and it causes problems with LaTeX-aware editors and tools and startles LaTeX users, and _likely_ ), this deprecation needs to be a news item at some point of time. By the way, I found that (apart from spacing issues) lilypond-book --filter 'cat' lily.lytex will write out lily.tex as a LaTeX file with the "new" syntax. Even if you are using the _old_ lilypond-book executable. Which should tell you something about how consistent support for the old syntax actually was. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
