Am 09.10.2014 11:48, schrieb Phil Holmes:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Urs Liska" <[email protected]>
Your extension makes only very limited sense for scores reproducing the
"original breaks" of a single canonical original document. That's a
rather specific situation.
Now I start to see your misunderstanding.
If the breaks in _one_ version of a score
are so important, why is that the _only_ conceivable version of the
score with relevant breaks?
Where did I say that such a version is the only conceivable version
of the score?
And if that is the only conceivable
version, why would we put the breaks in conditionally?
Because one wouldn't want to *finally* produce a version of the score
with the breaks of the original score. If that's my interest (which
then would actually be a "rather specific situation") I can simply
use hardcoded \break commands.
The whole point of these conditional commands is to have a tool
(maybe you can call it an editing mode) to match LilyPond's output
with the *one* version of the score I'm copying from, that is the one
I have on my desktop in front of me.
I'd add my voice to saying that I could see how this would be useful.
When transcribing any piece of older music (renaissance in my case) it
would be convenient to keep the original line breaks to aid checking,
and then get rid of them to produce an appropriate newer version.
I'm less sure that having to \include a file is the best way to do it,
though.
I would prefer having the commands available as built-in commands too. I
just created the patch in the way I did it because I thought this would
make it easier to get accepted (because it's less intrusive and doesn't
add anything to runtime ressources unless needed explicitly).
Urs
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
