Re: clean numbered backups with convert-ly

[David Kastrup]

Eluze <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote
>> Eluze &lt;
>
>> eluzew@
>
>> &gt; writes:
>> 
>>> (sorry I can't remember exactly where that was) I tried a new patch to
>>> get
>>> rid of these numerous backups:
>>>
>>> -k --clean-numbered-backup - "clean numbered backups
>>> [filename.ext.~number~]"
>>>
>> As you said: this is easy to do with shell patterns anyway.  Easier
>> [than] to look up a rarely used option, and more flexible (you can do
>> it for one or multiple files).
>
> that's possible, too.
>
> eg. you can write convert-ly -beck *.ly
> or
> convert-ly --clean-numbered-backup test1.ly test5.ly

And then I would be afraid that it would do something besides cleaning
up the backups, some conversion or so.  When using rm *.ly.~* I know
exactly what will happen.

>> So I'd lean towards not doing anything here.
>>>
>>> during the discussion about numbered backups I discovered that you can
>>> easily write "convert-ly -beck" whereas I used to write  -b -e -c -k   -

[...]

>>> in the end of the chapter *2.3 Command line options for convert-ly*
>> 
>> This is usually assumed to be common knowledge, but of course it's
>> "common knowledge" mostly with people accustomed to Unix.
>
> and I'm not one of those 
>
> altogether I'm not insisting in adding this feature, it's just a proposal.

I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the feature.  With regard to the
documentation: that would make sense.  I did not object to that, merely
explained why nobody might have thought of mentioning it before.  I'd
have said that one should not just restrict this to convert-ly, but at
least lilypond and lilypond-book have so few parameterless options that
it seems hardly worth the trouble to mention that possibility with them.

-- 
David Kastrup