[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting
From: |
Erik Sandberg |
Subject: |
Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting |
Date: |
Mon, 14 Nov 2005 01:06:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.3 |
> On 11/12/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Trevor Bača wrote:
> > > So, both for ease of implementation -- and because actual composers
> > > seem to bar and bracket things quite arbitrarily -- maybe the request
> > > shouldn't be for arbitrarily nested contexts, but instead to free up
> > > barring and bracketting as independent tasks from each other. Dunno,
> > > but something to think about when it comes time to add to the sponsor
> > > page.
> >
> > Yes, this seems sensible.
Does this mean that cycles will be allowed in the graph of context
definitions?
--
Erik
- The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Trevor Bača, 2005/11/11
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Erik Sandberg, 2005/11/11
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/11/12
- Message not available
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/11/12
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Trevor Bača, 2005/11/12
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting,
Erik Sandberg <=
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/11/13
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Erik Sandberg, 2005/11/14
- Re: The limits of StaffGroup nesting, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2005/11/14