Nathan Chou <starry...@gmail.com> writes: > Thanks David and Urs for replying. > >>> There is a detail I would like to clarify. David suggested allowing \= >>> to optionally specify the parent context in which a cross-voice >>> spanner's information is shared (although I am not sure how that would >>> be done with a key-list, since I think the spanner id itself is a >>> string). >> >> Right. Maybe it should rather be a key? That would also make >> comparison generally faster than string comparisons. > > Would I convert a string input to a key, or should I only accept a key > as a valid id? The latter seems more convenient but I imagine would > break backward compatibility.
Slightly so. I'd still aim for that. The original approach seems un-Schemish anyway. A symbol as unique identifier is what symbols are intended for. >>> If this context is not specified, should it default to Score or Staff >>> (or something else)? >> >> Nothing at all? Namely don't look anywhere else unless asked for? > > So cross voice spanners should only work if the context to share > information is specified, right? If the context is not specified and > there is no default, the spanner id would only be used within the same > voice and not made known to any other contexts. I think that would provide clear and obvious semantics. That's an advantage. It's also somewhat cumbersome. I think that the expected frequency of occurence is low enough that the overall balance between obviousness and convenience looks favorable to me. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
