[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: file extensions
From: |
Mats Bengtsson |
Subject: |
Re: file extensions |
Date: |
Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:59:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 |
You can do it today! Just name your include files *.lyi and use
\include "myfile.lyi"
Thus, there's absolutely no reason to change anything in the
implementation of LilyPond. The only possible issue to discuss
is if we should use this convention in the example in the manual.
I have a similar favourite convention, namely to always use the
suffix .lytex for latex documents to be input to lilypond-book.
/Mats
Rune Zedeler wrote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea, before 2.0 to change the file extension
convensions so that you could distinguish files to be compiled from
files to be included?
It would be nice to be able to do something like "lilypond *.ly" without
getting errors about include-files.
(.lyi would be a natural extension, but I am open for suggestions)
-Rune
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
--
=============================================
Mats Bengtsson
Signal Processing
Signals, Sensors and Systems
Royal Institute of Technology
SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM
Sweden
Phone: (+46) 8 790 8463
Fax: (+46) 8 790 7260
Email: address@hidden
WWW: http://www.s3.kth.se/~mabe
=============================================
Re: file extensions, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2003/09/15