Looking at the details of the code, it seems fine. But I tend to agree with Han-Wen's concerns.
I'm wondering if it's possible to avoid code dup by making a base_stem_engraver of which glissando_stem_engraver and stem_engraver would be children. I probably don't have the right terminology for this (in fact I'm sure I don't), but I'm thinking of what happens with ligature_engraver and mensural_ligature_engraver. Feel free to ignore this message if it's not helpful. I haven't tried it and don't have a concrete suggestion. Thanks, Carl http://codereview.appspot.com/4661061/diff/12004/lily/stem.cc File lily/stem.cc (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/4661061/diff/12004/lily/stem.cc#newcode1093 lily/stem.cc:1093: programming_error ("Glissandi stem must have two and only two noteheads."); I'd probably prefer to have this stated "Glissando stem does not have exactly two noteheads", because then it's a description of the error, instead of a description of the desired behavior. http://codereview.appspot.com/4661061/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
