Paul Scott <[email protected]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 01:58:16PM -0500, David Wright wrote: >> On Tue 17 Oct 2017 at 11:31:46 (-0700), Paul Scott wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 08:14:06PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > > Thank you for your explanation and I believe I have long understood > of \version statements. > >> > > LilyPond expects a \version statement in the main file. Put one there. >> > > convert-ly can do this for you (probably leave off the -d option). >> > >> > In all my projects the .ily file with the \version statement is the main >> > file with the music in it. There is .ly file for each instrument/part >> > which includes the .ily file. I haven't had to put a \version statement >> > in each .ly file until 2.19.80. >> >> But it's pointless *not* to include a version statement. You aren't >> expected to keep editing it so that it remains "up to date". > > The single \version statement in the main .ily file gives the version for > the code. I wouldn't have different versions of code in different parts > of the project. > > And yes I don't use convert-ly. I have many editing tools to keep my > code current and even to update a project written with older code. > Just search and replace in emacs is one of my most used tools.
I think that we have reached a point in the discussion where everybody has reasonably well got all of the others' points and we are just venting. When you have strong opinions about LilyPond, it might make sense to follow the issue tracker and/or the bug mailing list. This was issue 5180 <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/5180/>, and preceding it was a brief mention on the bug-lilypond list at <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-lilypond/2017-08/msg00060.html>. The earlier one gives feedback, the better the chances to influence the outcome. I have considered ignoring \version for files from LilyPond's own directories for the sake of this warning. However, projects like the openlily library provide files that will usually sit in user directories and are versioned as well, so this would not have worked for an important use case. Silencing the warning is easy to do, and as I said, one call of convert-ly will do it for you. convert-ly is a pretty carefully maintained tool as well these days, so avoiding it does not really make a lot of sense: its replacement patterns tend to be a lot more tested than the average Emacs (or whatever) search&replace pattern invented on the fly. So providing it is the best we can do to avoid irate mails about behavior changes in LilyPond's input syntax. The manual might do a better job than I can do on the fly about why sometimes such changes are called for. convert-ly is a commandline tool. I think it is somewhat nicely embedded with the Frescobaldi specialized LilyPond editor. I don't think there is a technical reason for Emacs' LilyPond-mode to lack behind support of editing and general workflow behind Frescobaldi as much as it does, but it's basically unmaintained, and that shows. I do use Emacs myself but cannot in good conscience recommend it for LilyPond writing: using it implies working around the mode's deficiencies. The Scheme mode is much better, in contrast. At any rate, in the post-change discussion you might want to consider stronger arguments than "it worked before", like why consider it a bad idea to put a \version statement in your main files. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
