On 2014/11/01 18:04:31, Dan Eble wrote:
On 2014/11/01 06:37:11, dak wrote: > I can rebase that patch if you want to see whether fitting a user
interface
> there feels better.
Would you settle for my original approach of adding an internal
argument but not
exposing any UI for it until after more thought is put into the many interrelated issues that have been mentioned?
Well, you may have to rework once we have progressed on how we organize internals. But that beats getting nowhere because of deadlocking on everything that might change. With the user interface, it's a bit more icky. At the very least, what we get in 2.20 should either stay around or be fully upgradable using convert-ly. I am skeptical that we can really guarantee this for even the current forced partcombine decisions yet. I'm not getting half of the stuff done I want to. And it *is* sort of ridiculous that for every proposal regarding the part combiner I pull an old issue out of the hat where I did not ultimately commit anything because I was not really happy with it either. But again: maybe I should just commit those and accept that we'll get nowhere fast, and likely have interfaces in 2.20 that we cannot really save or convert into 2.22. https://codereview.appspot.com/144170043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
