[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?
From: |
Werner LEMBERG |
Subject: |
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature? |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:58:56 +0100 (CET) |
>> How much sense would it make for there to be a separate \mark-style
>> command that functioned identically but didn't mess with the
>> counter?
I'm all for it!
> Meh… I don’t really like the original suggestion (of a
> RehearsalMark-relative \addAt parameter), so it makes little sense
> to me.
So what will you do with, say, 100 \addAt entries after inserting an
additional bar? If \addAt could be relative to markers, I would only
have to update the \addAt entries between the two markers which
contain the additional bar. Without that, I had to update all \addAt
entries that come after the inserted bar.
Werner
Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Kieren MacMillan, 2014/01/14
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Kieren MacMillan, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, Urs Liska, 2014/01/15
- Re: how close are we to having an "addAt" or "insertAt" feature?, David Kastrup, 2014/01/15