2012/2/10 David Kastrup <[email protected]>: > Janek Warchoł <[email protected]> writes: >> Sorry, i don't understand. Do you think that grace timing is too >> small or too big for GSoC? > > It _sounds_ too small, but may turn out to be quite a number. > Basically, it requires a solid understanding of iterators, analyzing the > music events occuring in grace situations, designing iteration orders > useful for typesetting and MIDI replay, and making everything work with > them. Iterators are not really the best documented corner of LilyPond.
Thanks, now i better understand what's good for a GSoC idea. 2012/2/10 Phil Holmes <[email protected]>: > That might be another good avenue for a GSoC proposal - improving code > documentation, which would therefore make it easier to get new contributors > on board. Unfortunately not. GSoC explicitly states that it must be about writing code. Documentation is explicitly excluded from GSoC. 2012/2/10 [email protected] <[email protected]>: > It'd be great as well to see you work on your font-related projects > such as different flag and accidental glyphs. Also, I'm guessing > that one does not need to devote 100% of one's GSoC time to writing > lines of code. LilyPond also needs lots of problems framed in terms > of examples from the literature alongside the corresponding (possibly > deficient) ly code. You also do that really well Thanks! However i'm not sure if this qualifies for GSoC. Sure, writing .ly files is writing code :D but i don't think Google will like this. > and it'd be great to have a formalized way of establishing goals via this > sort of research. +1 cheers, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
