[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Currently, define-grob-properties.scm is (almost) alphabetical by > property. This makes it nice for avoiding the collisions that occur > when two different grobs have a property with the same name, but makes > it very difficult to see all the properties associated with a given > grob. > > Would it make sense to order the properties alphabetically by the grob > to which the property applies? That is, should we have all fret-diagram > properties adjacent to one another? I suppose that if a standard were > developed such that the property names began with the grob name, there > would be no conflict between alphabetically and grouped by grob name, > but renaming all of the properties seems to me to be a low priority. > > I've just added the properties for fret-diagrams, and they're scattered > throughout define-grob-properties.scm. I'd be happy to collect them in > one section if it's preferred.
the problem is that we try to minimise the number of properties, and reuse them for multiple grobs, so for many properties, it's not clear how they should be grouped. But they are grouped per Grob in the documentation of every Grob. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
