2016-01-01 22:13 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>: > 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),
Don't have any as well >> 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, For cross-checking visual appearance with other line spanners the attached pdf to my mail here http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-01/msg00005.html could give a starting point. >> abstracting useful >> commonalities and differences and only ultimately touching the code. I general: sounds like a plan. > > 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? In general, even a feature-request which is well-defined and short worded may involve a lot more then expected. ;) Cheers, Harm _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
