Paul Scott <waterho...@ultrasw.com> writes: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 07:42:42PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> Paul Scott <waterho...@ultrasw.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:51:37PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Paul Scott <waterho...@ultrasw.com> writes: >> >> >> >> > \include brings the version warning as follows: >> >> > >> >> > To avoid changing the version on each of my many .ly files >> >> >> >> You aren't supposed to change the version on each of your many .ly >> >> files: that would be pointless since that doesn't upgrade the syntax. >> >> You are supposed to update them with convert-ly. >> >> >> >> convert-ly -ed *.ly >> >> >> >> will do the job. >> > >> > Thank you for replying. >> > >> > This has nothing to do with convert-ly. >> >> Why? > > It has to do will all the Lily projects. I certainly appreciate all the > work on convert-ly and I keep my code current anyway.
That isn't an answer to the question why maintaining version statements should have nothing to do with convert-ly. The first sentence is not even a sentence. > Does LilyPond use the version statements for more than just > convert-ly? For the warnings. >> > This is how I set up all my projects for efficient (from my point of >> > view) editing. >> >> So? > > So, why does my minimal example give a warning even though it works > perfectly? Which means all of my projects will give that warning even > though they work. That is the whole _point_ of a warning: LilyPond is able to complete the job which _may_ mean that it works perfectly but it cannot be sure. For example, because it does not know for which version some file has been written. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user