Am 28.10.2010 14:53, schrieb carl.d.soren...@gmail.com:
LGTM.
However, I'm a bit nervous about putting bends as well into the
Tab_tie_follow_engraver. Not that the engraver won't work, but that the
Tab_tie_follow_engraver won't be part of the documentation.
I think you misunderstood the TODO. I did not want to propose the bend
engraver to be
part of the Tab_tie_follow_engraver, but a tie followed by a bend should
be handled
exactly as a tie/slur or a tie/glissando combination.
Currently, I view Scheme engravers as a way for users (and snippets) to
add engraver functionality, but not as an optimal way to add core
functionality.
I understand your argument, but I think that it would be better to
include scheme engravers
into the docs before recoding the Tab_tie_follow_engraver in c++. At
least, I cannot cope with this.
Aside from that, I think that more extensions on the scheme side
(including engravers)
are about to come.
Marc
I'm not asking you to change your code, but I'm trying to send up a
caution flag to see what others might say about it.
Thanks,
Carl
http://codereview.appspot.com/2191042/diff/17001/input/regression/tablature-tie-slur-glissando.ly
File input/regression/tablature-tie-slur-glissando.ly (right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/2191042/diff/17001/input/regression/tablature-tie-slur-glissando.ly#newcode1
input/regression/tablature-tie-slur-glissando.ly:1: \version "2.13.37"
2.13.38
http://codereview.appspot.com/2191042/
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
