Re: strange conversion

[Graham Percival]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:04:51 -0400
David Raleigh Arnold <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 September 2003 08:30 pm, Graham Percival wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 00:59:11 +0200
> > > \version "1.7.28"
> >
> > There were no syntax changes between version 1.7.28 and 1.8.0, so
> > LilyPond merely printed the number of the version for the last
> > change it made.
> >
> > That said, it might be nicer if it printed the number of its current
> > version to avoid this confusion.  I can't think of any downside to
> > changing that behaviour, but I'll need to check with Han and/or Jan.
> 
> I was wondering about that, thanks.  Might I request adding the
> number of the current version but not removing the version
> of the last change?  A comment would not only be easier to
> do but more reassuring if not more useful.
> 
> % Last change version.  Current version is "n-n-n":
> \version "n-n-n"

Han or Jan?  Is there any downside to printing the number of the current
LilyPond version instead of the version of the last change?  I think
it'd be nicer to just have the single version number instead of having
the comment as well.

Cheers,
- Graham