Graham Percival-3 wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:21:57PM -0700, -Eluze wrote: >> >> just a question: could we get rid of these -doptions? > > Maybe as many as 5 of them. Not more. > >> since shortly at least 50% (or is it 80% ? ) can be defined directly in >> LilyPond without any loss of comfort/functionality - or do I overlook >> something? > > AFAIK all of the -d options can be define in lilypond itself, as > long as you know scheme. In addition, any of them could be > enabled with the -e scheme option. > > For your own scores, you can certainly do this. But most of those > -d options were added for our doc build process, to assist the > mutopia project, or for LSR. In those cases, we explicitly do not > want to change the .ly source, although we want to use those > options. > >> please let me know your opinion - I would be happy to discuss and >> integrate >> it in these plans > > I don't think it's worth trying to mess with -d options, primarily > because literally nobody knows which ones are used. Going through > all our build scripts, finding out what mutopia is still using, > checking with LSR, checking for any other build processes that > people are using, would be a huge task. > > I would rather add something to the docs saying "if you're not > certain that you need a -d option, then you probably don't, and it > will save you time and energy if you do XYZ instead". > > OK, let's just add a small note, see https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2476&thanks=2476&ts=1334313574
Eluze -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/include-settings-and-path-or-file-name-with-blanks-tp33661145p33681029.html Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - Bugs mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond