RE: Music function arguments

[Fairchild]

Trevor -

Interesting thread.  Lily seems to be transitioning from development to
productization with bug reports drifting from "it doesn't work" to "maybe
foo would be better."  Congraduations (sic).

Thanks.

                - Bruce

-----Original Message-----
From: Trevor Baca [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 5:57 PM
To: Fairchild
Cc: Han-Wen Nienhuys; address@hidden;
address@hidden; Nicolas Sceaux
Subject: Re: Music function arguments


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