Re: missing/empty files

[Simon Albrecht]

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