edes <e...@gmx.net> writes: > el 2019-03-16 a las 19:23 Saul Tobin escribió: > >> I agree that when a long markup stretches the measure at the end of a >> line, it suggests that there may be better ways of laying out the line >> breaks. >> >> Perhaps there should be a penalty for stretched measures due to markup in >> Lilypond's line breaking algorithm? > > it seems to me that this should be taken into account, definitely. > specially if everyone agrees in the previous statement.
Agreement does not buy a whole lot when there is nobody who can or will do the job. There are a number of LilyPond subsystems where the existing expertise is mostly in the hands or rather heads of programmers who are mostly withdrawn from active development. I have taken efforts in some regions to restructure code and operation in manners that have quite a lower barrier to entry (in my opinion) but of course the short-term effects are such that the main source of expertise is myself which does not exactly increase the robustness against resource starvation. There have also been several refactoring projects by several people who have used that opportunity as a launch pad into more extensive changes but the process tends to have drained their energy to a degree where larger followup projects were not really within the scope of what they ended up to be able to invest themselves in. Breaking LilyPond's code more open to manipulation here, in a first step to C++ programming but ultimately also open to adaptation in Scheme, would certainly be desirable. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
