Re: Suggestion: Keep original breaks

[Urs Liska]

Am 27.11.2013 16:52, schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > 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.
> So you are saying that your use case is impossible to do via tags?  Or
> are we back to ad hominem attacks?
I'm saying that "my" use case is impossible without injecting _anything_ 
into LilyPond.
What I want is to get that functionality so someone else can compile the 
same file without having to separately install a library file but with a 
default LilyPond installation.

I'd be completely OK with
- an include file in LilyPond's default include path (/ly)
- the user having to manually include that file (as a compromise)
- the commands in the include file responding to a switch. While I don't 
care if that switch is a command line option or a tag supplied through 
the command line. But this response would be specific again, that's what 
I'm referring to.