Hi Kieren,
Am 06.11.21 um 20:58 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hello all,
Now if what you want is really coding, there are
heaps of open issues waiting for you. Here are a
few that I believe (NB no warranty) would be feasible
for a power user with some minimal understanding of
Scheme:
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/794
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/686
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/1034
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/1949
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/1860
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/2893
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/3901
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/5189
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/6034
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/4320
https://gitlab.com/lilypond/lilypond/-/issues/4079
Thanks for this list!
1. Just to confirm: I will not need to touch any C++ code in order to fix these
issues?
I think that's too optimistic.
For example in #794, ly:arpeggio::print gets blamed. Functions starting
with "ly:" are usually written in C++, and it is indeed (lily/arpeggio.cc).
But of course it might very well be possible to rewrite a function like
this in Scheme. Lots of print routines are.
#686 certainly involves a bit of C++ programming (the command line is
evaluated in C++).
#1034 seems safe, there's no actual "programming" involved, as far as I
can see.
#1949 should be Scheme only.
... and now Jean's message arrives, making it unnecessary for me to look
further :-).
Lukas
