Re: include-settings and path or file name with blanks

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:21:57PM -0700, -Eluze wrote:
> 
> just a question: could we get rid of these -doptions? 

Maybe as many as 5 of them.  Not more.

> since shortly at least 50% (or is it 80% ? ) can be defined directly in
> LilyPond without any loss of comfort/functionality - or do I overlook
> something? 

AFAIK all of the -d options can be define in lilypond itself, as
long as you know scheme.  In addition, any of them could be
enabled with the -e scheme option.

For your own scores, you can certainly do this.  But most of those
-d options were added for our doc build process, to assist the
mutopia project, or for LSR.  In those cases, we explicitly do not
want to change the .ly source, although we want to use those
options.

> please let me know your opinion - I would be happy to discuss and integrate
> it in these plans 

I don't think it's worth trying to mess with -d options, primarily
because literally nobody knows which ones are used.  Going through
all our build scripts, finding out what mutopia is still using,
checking with LSR, checking for any other build processes that
people are using, would be a huge task.

I would rather add something to the docs saying "if you're not
certain that you need a -d option, then you probably don't, and it
will save you time and energy if you do XYZ instead".

- Graham