Marnen Laibow-Koser <address@hidden> 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?