On 2016/06/28 18:16:05, pkx166h wrote:
On 2016/06/28 17:29:19, dak wrote: > On 2016/06/28 17:09:04, thomasmorley651 wrote: > > Can't review the code. > > From description: very nice. > > > > Though, I'm not sure to which grade coding (with)
header-expressions will be
> > extended. > > Complete? Try finding something that doesn't work. > > > Meaning, how about an entry in changes and/or snippets? > > Changes, regtests, snippets, documentation. All that would be
warranted and
> required, turning this from a 60-line change to a 1000-line change,
and that's
> before translations. But that's not the main problem for me. The
main
problem > is that the feature itself is straightforward and obvious, but
examples and
> descriptions are arbitrary and there are thousands of different ways
to tell
the > story. > > And whatever way I pick is sure to be substantially rewritten
anyway. So it's
a > bit of a fight for me to muster the energy for the first shot at it.
So I guess a tracker for now would be good enough or should we wait
some more?
James
Well, the absence of this feature tripped up a user who wrote code in the expectation that it would work, and the feature very much works like other similar features do. His minimal example would have worked right out of the box. So I'd like not to hold this up unnecessarily. But "regtests" don't really count as unnecessary in any meaning of the book. Even given a somewhat tolerable overall track record. So I'll add regtests to this issue, but I think it's a reasonably good bet that I won't be knitting the behavior of \header into the documentation in a convincing and timely manner. So put up an issue for the documentation. I don't know yet whether this will need to include a Changes entry or not: maybe I'll put one up as well if I get a good notion of one while writing the regtests. https://codereview.appspot.com/296600043/ _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
