[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?
From: |
Carl D. Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:57:24 -0600 |
On 6/24/09 2:33 PM, "Neil Puttock" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Carl D. Sorensen <address@hidden>:
>
>> Shouldn't we do this by eliminating Dynamic_engraver and renaming
>> New_dynamic_engraver to Dynamic_engraver?
>
> I'm not sure, since New_dynamic_engraver doesn't have all the
> functionality of Dynamic_engraver (though it would be easy enough to
> have a convert rule which adds Dynamic_align_engraver if necessary.)
But if we're eliminating Dynamic_engraver, all the functionality it has will
be going away anyway. So I don't think there's any loss in changing the
name.
Carl
- Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Neil Puttock, 2009/06/23
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Patrick McCarty, 2009/06/24
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Neil Puttock, 2009/06/28
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Mark Polesky, 2009/06/28
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Neil Puttock, 2009/06/28
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Mark Polesky, 2009/06/28
- Re: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?, Neil Puttock, 2009/06/29
- type-check list in NR 6.1.1 (was: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/29
- Re: type-check list in NR 6.1.1 (was: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?), Carl D. Sorensen, 2009/06/29
- Re: type-check list in NR 6.1.1 (was: Time to retire Dynamic_engraver?), Mark Polesky, 2009/06/29