[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lilypond -dread-file-list= dows not produce the expected output

From: Colin Hall
Subject: Re: lilypond -dread-file-list= dows not produce the expected output
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:39:05 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:25:17PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Colin Hall <address@hidden> writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:43:01AM +0100, Colin Hall wrote:
> >> 
> >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 01:58:00AM -0700, Eluze wrote:
> >> > running the command
> >> > 
> >> > lilypond -dread-file-list=read-file-list.txt   --> displays the help text
> >> > (same as lilypond -h)
> >> 
> >> Searching both open and closed trackers revealed nothing about this
> >> option. I wonder when it was last used?
> >> 
> >> Anyway, by experimentation I discovered that the correct syntax, on
> >> both Linux and Windows, is:
> >> 
> >> lilypond -dread-file-list read-file-list.txt
> >> 
> >> or
> >> 
> >> lilypond -d read-file-list read-file-list.txt
> >> 
> >> Note the lack of an equals sign.
> >> 
> >> What this option appears to do is to tell Lilypond to treat the
> >> Lilypond source file as a list of files to process.
> >> 
> >> I think the following is the topic of your other post, Eluze: what I
> >> also found was that the file containing the list of files to process
> >> must have Linux line endings. A Windows plain text file is not
> >> correctly interpreted.
> >
> > Just to be clear then, there is no bug to report here.
> >
> > This was a usage problem.
> "Must have Linux line endings" is not a mere "usage problem".

Agreed. I was referring to the syntax of the "read-file-list" option
which was the topic of this bug report.

You may have (understandably) confused this bug report with the fourth
of Eluze's recent bug reports relating to Windows command line usage.

> But as long as Windows is a supported platform, a line-organised file
> needs to be able to contain platform-specific line endings.

Totally agree. See issue tracker 2765 which I created earlier today.


> And in any case: behavior that can only be figured out and interpreted
> by trial and error and code reading is, at the very least, a
> documentation issue.

I agree. After a careful reading of:


I decided the documentation was correct, if a little lacking in
concrete examples, which at this point is good enough for me.

If anyone would like to create a doc enhancement request I will be
happy to create a tracker for it.



Colin Hall

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]