Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 27.11.2013 16:36, schrieb Carl Sorensen: >> On 11/27/13 8:32 AM, "Urs Liska" <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote: >> >>> For me this sounds good. >>> Requiring to write \include "original-breaks.ly" is significantly better >>> than requiring to define the commands. >>> But it would still need a separate switch, presumably through the >>> command line. >> This is true, but it would be possible to put the appropriate command line >> switch in Frescobaldi and to access it by means of a check box, right? > > Right, that's not the issue. We can pass command line options, > expressions or include files from Frescobaldi (that's what we already > do with the Layout Control Options). > But we would have to make the commands in the include file respond to > that switch, and IISC we'd be back at the specific use case that > offended David.
So you are saying that your use case is impossible to do via tags? Or are we back to ad hominem attacks? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
