On 5/2/10 8:38 PM, "Boris Shingarov" <b...@shingarov.com> wrote:
> I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more > flexible formatting rules. WE are using it for things like multi-line > embedded scores, mixing them with markup lines, rules about what things > / combinations of things should not start / end a line, also there are > rules like "no line break between certain words and beginning ebmbedded > score", that kind of formatting rules. I had described some of these > ideas in my earlier posts on this list. Markup functions being able > to return a list of stencils. Much more importantly, markups need to > be aware of what was placed before, and what is to follow, therefore > when processing the markup-list, we need to pass a continuation at each > step, instead of iterating over the list. This kind of ideas. > > It even sort of works. Well, works enough for production use by > non-programmer users. But still far from being a general Lilypond > improvement. The other, easier improvements (orphan-avoiding > functionality, page-breaking fixes), are making it fine into the > upstream repo: for those, going from the happy state of having the > user's problem fixed, to the happier state of fixing it for everyone, > is of a reasonable proportion compared to the whole amount of work. > But with my markup changes, it's much different. Even the first and > simplest of these changes (patch 207105), to go from the current state > to an actual submittable patch, will take like 2x the time it took to > get it to solve the user's probem. Why do you think it will take 2x the time it took to write it? I've reviewed the patch; the only problems I see are minor indentation and formatting issues. I'm surprised, because the patch set says it's 2 months old, but I can't find any reference to issue 207105 in the -devel or the -user archives. So this is the first time I've known that the patch is available for review. If I've missed it, I'm sorry. > For the bigger problems, like the > "markup needs to know what's before and what's ahead", or for the > integrated text/embedded-score flow, I don't know, could be up to 5x, > and now we are suddenly looking at problems of user value, and all the > repercussions. I don't agree with that assessment. My observation is that the time need to turn a solution into an acceptable patch is roughly constant. So the fraction of time spent on fixing things up is much less for a large patch than for a small patch. > So there is development happening which is important > to users (= enables a serious academic publication through a top-name > publisher), but those contributions can not be used better than just > being thrown away by the community. Absolutely. I agree. I'll comment on your Rietveld patch. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
