Re: quick reply(s) bar numbers

[David Kastrup]

Jay Hamilton <address@hidden> writes:

> Thanks for the comments, No the solutions didn't compile or I just
> don't understand what Toine means/meant.

The programs compiled fine on their own.

> Putting the additional materials in the layout just ground the program
> to a halt.

"ground the program to a halt" is not really the kind of information
from which one can deduce what went wrong.  Neither is "Putting the
additional materials in the layout" as there is a large variety of
possibilities of doing that.

> So I am living as it's not the biggest deal for the exercise- it was
> just that I was surprised that the \remove for bar number should not
> work in the same place as the other removes

Why shouldn't it?

> AND that it didn't work anywhere else in a score that otherwise
> compiled and looked good enough.
>
> As for your example- I don't do that level of tweaking, in fact I
> change stem directions and that's about it.

In that case it is rather surprising that you state your files all stop
running on newer versions after running convert-ly.  Perhaps you are
doing something quite different from the way it is intended to be done,
and in that case showing your problem in more detail might help both
developers to maintain better compatibility as well as you to avoid ways
of doing things that make it harder for you to upgrade later on.

> Also I'm probably way overstating my familiarity with 2.14 as the
> documents have changed so radically that unless something doesn't work
> for me I don't look it up to read more.

Can you explain what you mean by "the documents have changed"?  Which
documents?

> so my structures are probably totally wrong for even that version but
> happily work.

As a music teacher, you are probably familiar with pupils claiming their
self-developed technique to be happily working, coming to you for the
final polishing of said technique.

Your compatibility problems are not going to become easier in future, so
a cursory scan of what you are doing, just to see where you can do a lot
better with comparatively little effort, might be a good investment.
Taking care of the low-hanging fruit.

> PS I've never gotten anything I've tried to convert-ly to compile.

>From which version to which version?

-- 
David Kastrup