On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>>> 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
>> 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
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>>> Looks good to me. It would be nice if I could say
>>>
>>> \path #0.25 #'miter #'square ##f #samplePath
>>>
>>> instead of using numbers for the second and third parameter. Is this
>>> possible?
>>
>> How about defining constants path:miter and path:square instead?
>> Looks good to me. It would be nice if I could say
>>
>> \path #0.25 #'miter #'square ##f #samplePath
>>
>> instead of using numbers for the second and third parameter. Is this
>> possible?
>
> How about defining constants path:miter and path:square instead? Then
> \path does not need speci
Werner LEMBERG writes:
>> This is a feature I've wanted to add to LilyPond for a while, and I've
>> posted a patch set on Rietveld:
>>
>> http://codereview.appspot.com/1730044/show
>>
>> Any comments are appreciated, especially regarding the syntactic
>> requirements of the new command.
>
> Loo
> This is a feature I've wanted to add to LilyPond for a while, and I've
> posted a patch set on Rietveld:
>
> http://codereview.appspot.com/1730044/show
>
> Any comments are appreciated, especially regarding the syntactic
> requirements of the new command.
Looks good to me. It would be nice i
Hello,
This is a feature I've wanted to add to LilyPond for a while, and I've
posted a patch set on Rietveld:
http://codereview.appspot.com/1730044/show
Any comments are appreciated, especially regarding the syntactic
requirements of the new command.
Thanks,
Patrick
___
