"Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:18 PM
>
>> The original proposal was to rule out 0. and .5 as real numbers. This
>> will introduce foreseen problems: things will break where those had been
>> used (there are definitely uses of 0. in our own code base but not for
>> .5). A few of those problems can be caught with convert-ly rules, but
>> those would be based on heuristics (like doing conversions when they
>> occur after = which should catch most existing cases). Such heuristics
>> would, however, also catch legitimate uses like
>>
>> \relative c' { b = 4. }
>>
>> (quick: can you guess what this does?).
>
> :) Well, I guessed correctly the 4. would be interpreted as a duration
> in note mode, but I didn't know whether the = would muck it up.
So what makes it legitimate? That's the interesting question...
> It doesn't. It might be legitimate, but I don't think users will have
> used this construct very often.
--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
