Re: Music function arguments

[Trevor Bača]

On 1/14/06, Fairchild <address@hidden> wrote:
> Please explain.  Maybe post the beginning of the thread, which seems to be
> missing from the archives - or has a different subject line.
>
> Thanks.
>
>                                  - Bruce
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of
> Trevor Baca
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 4:49 PM
> To: Han-Wen Nienhuys
> Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden; Nicolas Sceaux
> Subject: Re: Music function arguments
>
>
> On 12/14/05, Han-Wen Nienhuys <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Trevor Bača wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I agree, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of flips
> > > over to the manual while inputting.
> > >
> > > Of course, it probably would be better for *everything* to be
> > >
> > >   \command "arg"
> > >
> > > removing the kinda alien-looking (if you're not a scheme programmer)
> >
> > ACtually, this turned out to be trivial to do. I'm not sure why I
> > didn't do it earlier.
>
> Well hallelujah. This part of the peanut gallery says go for it before the
> userbase gets any bigger (resulting in more backwards compatability
> complaints).

Hi Bruce,

Check for a thread originally entitled "Invisible notes, Scheme
contexts" starting on 12 December 2005. Don Blaheta authored the first
post, and the thread runs through a large number of topics.

Trevor.


--
Trevor Bača
address@hidden