Paul Morris <p...@paulwmorris.com> writes: > On 1/25/19 10:43 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > >> I haven't looked at Jan-Peter's approach. David Garfinkle's code is >> mostly in the state of a solid first sketch, so a distribution-viable >> production-ready code is still quite a bit of work away. Without >> anybody committed to take it considerably further, making decisions >> based on its existence would seem to be a bit premature. Like with >> many open ends, this is more or less the "who decides to invest >> significant work gets to decide on the approach". There is not much >> of a point in planning out in detail what nobody will pick up. > > > Indeed, although, I've contributed a bit to Jan-Peter's code for this, > and would like to contribute more (as time allows) to see this feature > added to LilyPond. But I've wondered which approach would make more > sense for eventual landing in LilyPond. More consensus about the > approach, could encourage contributions by removing such questions.
Really, I don't think that looking for consensus at this point of time makes a whole lot of sense. We should rather look for workers and they are of course welcome to any amount of advice others may muster. Using a sort-of standard XML/Scheme mapping certainly makes sense regardless of the details of the approach taken. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
