On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 6:49 AM David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > Marnen Laibow-Koser <mar...@marnen.org> writes:
[...] > > > > AFAIK this was never proper syntax to begin with. Does it compile with > > LilyPond 2.18? I'd be surprised if it does. > > It was prior to 2.18, and it was merely discouraged with 2.18 (in the > course of which all occurences got replaced). There were good reasons > for retiring the syntax for good, but they were not accompanied by a > suitable convert-ly rule. Huh, that’s odd, but good to know. > > So basically the complaint is valid. But it sounds like this is an omission (I’d say a bug) in convert-ly itself, not necessarily an indication that this build of it is broken, right? > > -- > David Kastrup Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser mar...@marnen.org http://www.marnen.org Sent from Gmail Mobile
