Neil Puttock wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I've been looking at changing the definition of
> make-ottava-set...
>
> ...I'm torn between two different implementations, both
> using an OttavaEvent:
>
> 1) Create an Ottava_iterator...
> This has a slight drawback... implicit voice...
>
> 2) Wrap the context-specced-music result... in a list...
> ...seems to be a bit hackish....
I'm hardly an authority on C++ issues, but in general, if I
have to decide between:
1) being more strict with user-input syntax, and
2) coding something I feel is "hackish"
I'd prefer the former, since maintaining the integrity of
the program is a higher priority for me. I'm not a huge fan
of syntax shortcuts, implicit instantiation, etc. I imagine
these sorts of things can lead to problems down the road.
For example, if there are too many ways of coding the same
thing, that will make things like convert-ly harder to
maintain.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
