Paul Morris <p...@paulwmorris.com> writes: > On 05/17/2018 09:00 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Man, I must have slept through this. "this is already supported in >> 2.19" is misleading if it's actually only supported _outside_ of 2.19, >> namely by chancing upon people in the know in the mailing lists. >> >> The problem with that kind of support is that it's unreliable. Stuff >> might get reimplemented because people cannot find what they are looking >> for, and the old code might get removed as bit rot at any point of time. >> >> To actually move it to "supported" state inside of LilyPond, there need >> to be regression tests (which also stop bit rot), user-level >> documentation and a Changes entry. That gives a new feature a >> reasonable chance of getting tested and consolidated in order to be >> useful for more than a single application (often by a single person) in >> its region of interest. >> >> Do you feel up to getting that kind of support into LilyPond? > > Hi David, I agree that this deserves to have regression tests, > user-level docs, and a changes entry (to go with its current > documentation in the internals reference). I'll try to find time to > work on those things in the next weeks.
That would be very appreciated. Just from the few bits I have read right now, it appears to me like the purpose, scope, and behavior of that extension is a whole lot more specific, prescriptive and predictable in connection with various backends than Urs' proposal. Which does not preclude Urs building some higher-level functionality of the kind he envisions based on this. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
