On 26 août 2013, at 13:13, d...@gnu.org wrote: > On 2013/08/26 10:05:25, mike7 wrote: >> On 26 août 2013, at 13:00, mailto:d...@gnu.org wrote: > >> > That's bullshit since nobody assembles stencil expressions manually. > >> I assemble stencil expressions manually. > > If you meddle with internals, that's your own business. > >> > This is done using opaque functions like ly:stencil-translate. > >> ly:make-stencil is all over the place in the code and is a public > function which >> accepts a user-made expression. > > The only documented way to generate "user-made" expressions is to create > a stencil with the normal ly:stencil-... or stencil-... API functions > and extract its expression with ly:stencil-expr. There is _no_ > guarantee that anything else will work, and there is no guarantee that > the format of stencil expressions will be what it is now. > > You of all people should know that since you juggled around quite a bit > reorganizing stencil primitives used in the backend.
I was aware that the juggling would potential screw up scores (including my own) but proposed it because it was a move in the right direction, meaning that I knew we would never be adding these stencils back in again. I think Harm is right that, irrespective of documentation, users use what's available. If we're going to add something, we want to be sure that it has a certain degree of permanency. I don't think we can treat it as an implementation detail if it is publicly useable. Cheers, MS _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
