[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: missing/empty files

From: Simon Albrecht
Subject: Re: missing/empty files
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:17:03 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0

Am 14.08.2015 um 02:14 schrieb Dan Eble:
On Aug 13, 2015, at 09:36 , Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> wrote:
Am 01.08.2015 um 19:35 schrieb Dan Eble:
add a variant of \include which does nothing if the file does not exist 
(eliminating one reason to have empty files in the first place)
surely we would want \include to complain if there has been a typo and it 
should actually refer to an existing file. Since it’s hardly possible for Lily 
to decide about the user’s intentions here, we might perhaps provide another 
function with the behaviour you describe
That is what I had in mind when I wrote “a variant of \include”.
Of course. Sorry for overlooking that.
I suspect that \include is a parser keyword and thus a proper main code base solution couldn’t be done in Scheme. However, it doesn’t seem complicated, so if you can give a good naming suggestion and rationale (i.e. a concise and convincing enhancement request to be tracked), perhaps David K. (or somebody of our dozens of core developers :-/ ) can come up with a patch. The other route to go would be asking on -user for help with creating a scheme function for your purposes, which you might then make accessible through the LSR or openlilylib.

Yours, Simon

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]