On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 7:22 AM, m...@mikesolomon.org <m...@mikesolomon.org> wrote: > On 24 déc. 2012, at 10:36, d...@gnu.org wrote: > > On 2012/12/24 07:28:17, mike7 wrote: > > On 24 déc. 2012, at 01:10, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote: > > >> All of this is absolutely devastatingly horrible code that is not >> reconcilable with sane per-session semantics and tampers with > > LilyPond > >> internals in a way that has bleed-over effects into future files in > > the > >> same command line. >> >> In addition, the interfaces into the exposed internals are > > absolutely > >> horrific and cryptic and don't make any sense as a user interface. >> > > > I agree that the innards I'm exposing are not coded particularly > well > > > You don't get the point. A user interface is not supposed to "expose > innards", it is supposed to provide functionality. Pulling data > structures and some of the code accessing them into the open is not a > user interface. > > > I am certainly not saying that this type of task is for every user, but > someone comfortable enough to do this should not have to copy and paste from > define-*.scm every time. > >> This is taking everything that is broken with >> input/regression/scheme-text-spanner.ly, magnifies it to a number of >> other cases, and gives it a bad interface. > > > > I am of the opinion that it is better to have stuff like this that > allows people to do creative and interesting things with LilyPond > than not have it at all. > > > But those "creative and interesting things" will break frequently on > update. We already have quite a bit of "why doesn't this stuff I > based on [some version of] scheme-text-spanner.ly not work in my > version of LilyPond?" questions. > > > It seems like you'd rather not make something accessible rather than making > it accessible in a fragile state. I certainly prefer the latter, as it > allows more people to experiment. For example, David's work on the frame > engraver would be a great trial ground for this sort of thing. >
I've gotten a lot of use out of techniques in scheme-text-spanner.ly--that's probably very evident--and I'm quite appreciative that it's there. I understand the problems that it causes--I've seen evidence of bleed-over. However, I'm using these techniques as a convenient aid to developing new features. I could certainly work directly in LilyDev and alter the necessary files in the proper way, but then I'm unable to get feedback from those users who would actively use the new features but aren't comfortable applying patches. You can see just how much user feedback I got during the creation of the measure counter (issue 2445). As far as the frame engraver goes, I've gotten a good sense of what such a thing ought to do, and corrected several problems based on input from lilypond-user. My efforts here are still quite a way from producing a formal patch and putting it up for review, but that is the end goal. Best, David _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
