Hi David, >> Not sure if this was "I hit send early", or "teaching a man to fish", or >> "+1"…? > It was "the principles of the mechanisms are incompatible".
I thought that might be it… Coincidentally, I've long wanted to help spearhead and sponsor a "Grand Unified Partcombine Project". (Searching on the list, it seems like 2009 was my first "official" call for such a thing.) Questions: 1. Is there some technical/coding reason that the principles of the two mechanisms *must* be incompatible? Put another way, could one (or both) be tweaked — or even rewritten (mostly or entirely) — such that the two mechanisms *aren't* incompatible? 2. Am I the only one who wants a killer part-combining framework? Is nobody else using it as much as I am (even in its highly-limited current state)? 3. Are there any programmers out there willing to work with me towards a really great partcombiner? Thanks, 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
