Re: Suggestion: Keep original breaks

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/27/13 8:45 AM, "Urs Liska" <address@hidden> wrote:

>Am 27.11.2013 16:36, schrieb Carl Sorensen:
>> On 11/27/13 8:32 AM, "Urs Liska" <address@hidden> 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