On 11/27/13 8:45 AM, "Urs Liska" <u...@openlilylib.org> wrote:
>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. define a tag "original-break" Use the tag "original-break" in the definition of originalBreak in the include file original-breaks.ly Have a command-line switch that says --t original-break (or the equivalent). Have a general use case that says "we can define tags to be kept or excluded from the command line". Now we have the general use case that David wants and a straightforward means of getting the specific use case that Urs wants. Is this a problem? It seems to me like the outline of a complete solution. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
