Simon Albrecht <simon.albre...@mail.de> writes: > On 04.03.2016 22:53, Blöchl Bernhard wrote: > >> A much better solution might be (just as a question/recommendation) >> not to strain a simple minded user like me with such subtleties. > > This is not a ‘subtlety’ but a fundamental design principle; as a > matter of fact, one cannot make thorough use of LilyPond without > escaped Scheme expressions. And IMO it’s better to give an honest and > clear explanation here, to avoid later confusion.
If we can avoid the confusion by other means at reasonable cost (explaining ##f every time it is used would not be reasonable), nothing wrong with redundancy. However, all suggestions take effort of various kinds to implement. The more work someone hoping to see a change invests into outlining this change (with the optimum being a submitted patch&issue), the better is the probability that it will be picked up and implemented according to his plan. Finding all occurences and proposing exact text replacements would already be a big help since that "only" requires use of editor and other tools for a developer rather than his own creativity. The more vague a proposal is, the less probable it is that someone will actually act on it. Of course, the more work one invests, the more frustrating it might be when _still_ nobody acts on it. While there are no guarantees, I continue being impressed at the amount of developers who actually do pick up documentation suggestions and create patches for them. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
