Hi David, > To me it would appear that in this case by far the lion's share of the > work is digging through reference books (incidentally, I don't have any > of those), devising a good plan for the desired behavior, checking with > the current behavior, figuring out where the differences are, > cross-checking with other line spanners, abstracting useful > commonalities and differences and only ultimately touching the code.
If OttavaBracket simply supported line-spanner-interface (as per my feature request in a previous email), and I submitted a reasonable set of defaults and syntactic sugar — based on the many reference books (which, incidentally, I *do* have) — we’d satisfy 99.5% of the OttavaBracket needs of 99.5% of the Lilypond user base. Getting that done in a short amount of time seems like a far better idea (to me) than spending multiple hours cross-checking other spanners, etc., and possibly not rolling out such useful features in the foreseeable future. It’s funny: I have been taken to task more than one time on this list for defining too large and vague a feature/request. Now an incredibly focused and well-defined task (“make OttavaBracket support line-spanner-interface”) is apparently too small and/or specific? Regards, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
