Re: Documentation suggestion: Including LilyPond files

[Urs Liska]

Am 22.05.2012 01:15, schrieb Colin Hall:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:07:05PM +0200, Urs Liska wrote:
> > I think I stumbled over a bit of misleading or wrong information in the NR.
> I agree. I had a look and found issue 391 entitled "using relative filepath in \include 
> "foo.ly""
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=391
>
> It looks like this was fixed in 2009 and released in the 2.12.x series.
Ah, that might explain something.
I somehow was convinced that it isn't possible to reference include 
files this way and was therefore quite surprised to see that it actually 
is ...
> > Please have a look at the following documentation suggestion and
> > incorporate it into the NR if you find it correct:
> I haven't tested it but going by the issue tracker your suggestion
> makes sense. Thanks very much for doing a thorough job.
I forgot to mention that I _have_ tested the following:
main file includes "sub1/includeOne.ily"
includeOne.ily contains the include-relative directive and includes 
"sub2/includeTwo.ily" (which is "sub1/sub2/includeTwo.ily" relative to 
the main input file.

Best
Urs
> See new documentation tracker:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2558
Thanks