On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Neil Puttock wrote: > On 24 July 2011 09:55, m...@apollinemike.com <m...@apollinemike.com> wrote: > >> Why is it a bad thing to do it this way? Currently, the >> Beam_collision_engraver implements dynamic filtering based on interface, and >> I don't think there's a problem with that (it is the only way to make it >> ignore certain grobs on the fly). > > I don't like the name. We already have `core interfaces'; they're > grob-interface, item-interface and spanner-interface. >
Ah, OK. I can change it. How about horizontal-alignment-interfaces? >> Creating a new interface would be OK but would make it harder to filter out >> interfaces on the fly (people would have to override a grob's "meta" >> property, which seems hard). > > Do you have a scenario whereby a user might want to override this? > No, but I think the question should be "are we 100% sure that a user wouldn't want to override this?" As I am not an authority on the subject and I just picked the interfaces populating the core-interfaces list based on personal predilections, I cannot guarantee that this list is not something that shouldn't be overridden in certain instances. When in doubt, I try to leave as much of my code as possible open to Scheme overrides. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
