>> From a syntactical point of view, I can't see an immediate benefit of
>> saying
>>
>> #path:miter
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> #'miter
>
> Hm? Could you explain what constitutes a "syntactical point of
> view" in your book?
I probably misformulated. I simply mean that the `path:' prefix is an
additional burden to type, and it somewhat looks redundant to me.
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
