Kieren MacMillan <[email protected]> writes: > Hi David, > >> I gave the answer previously, including the rationale. Since it was >> tactfully being ignored, it seemed to require more emphasis. >> Otherwise I would likely have been blamed for ignoring users' wishes >> in spite of them reaching perfect agreement. > > So to be perfectly clear: You can see no way to implement any sort of > shorthand which saves the user having to know (and potentially return > to modify, time and time again) the "current measure duration"?
Quite so. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
