search

jperon / lyluatex

Alternative à lilypond-book pour lualatex
MIT License
58 stars 12 forks source link

Can we ignore "irrelevant" options? #114

Closed uliska closed 6 years ago

uliska commented 6 years ago

https://github.com/jperon/lyluatex/projects/1#column-2040071 lists options as "irrelevant" because they are only needed for texinfo output.

I think we should provide a uniform way to issue a warning when any of those options is used in a (previously lilypond-book) document. That should be different from the usual LaTeX error when an unknown package option is used.

jperon commented 6 years ago

For sure, we should ignore them. To issue a warning, we could use the info() function.

rpspringuel commented 6 years ago

I think the version one might still be useful, but the others are probably safe to ignore (with an appropriate message).

✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝✝ Br. Samuel, OSB (R. Padraic Springuel) PAX ☧ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΣ

On Feb 11, 2018, at 11:57 AM, jperon notifications@github.com wrote:

For sure, we should ignore them. To issue a warning, we could use the info() function.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

jperon commented 6 years ago

Which version should be added ? The version of the fragment (if specified), the version of lilypond which was used to compile it, or a custom version given by the user ?

rpspringuel commented 6 years ago

If I read the lilypond-book specification correctly, its the version of lilypond which was used to compile the code. Presumably when a user wants this option, their code (fragment) does not have an explicit version statement and they're using the option so that the final document does (to make it easier on the reader to tell what version of LilyPond produces the shown result).