On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:50:20 +0100 Joseph Wakeling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you still don't understand what is being requested. No; we understand it quite well. Adding something like this to the basic syntax could be quite problematic. We already get enough complaints about changing the syntax, so we certainly shouldn't rush to add a new construction like this. I suggest that you try writing a scheme function that meets your needs; once it's done, submit it to LSR and share it with other people. In a few months or years, if it's a widely, we may add it to the official lilypond packages. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
