On 8/16/08 2:41 AM, "Francisco Vila" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But, instead of doing reverse engineering all the time, shouldn't the
> core developers simply explain how did they coded \context and \new,
> when are they needed, what do they differ in, etc?
I believe that the docs started with the developers writing such things.
However, we have a finite amount of core developer time available. I'm
not capable (without spending a lot of time searching through the code) of
fixing things in the C++ engine. I *am* capable of writing LilyPond code,
and sometimes making mistakes, then figuring out how to fix the mistake, and
writing docs to help other avoid the same mistake.
Although it's a bit of a pain to sort of "reverse-engineer" the program, I
think it's better to preserve the core developer time for doing things only
they can do.
>
> Sometimes I think we treat LP as if it was a natural phenomenon and we
> were scientists from the 19th century trying to explain it. It is a
> piece of software, someone did it. I know it is very complex, but only
> for us, not for them, I assume.
I'm sure that it is somewhat complex for them, as well. Otherwise, there
would be no remaining bugs on the list.
>
> I am sorry if this sounds harsh. LP is great.
IMO, you've spent enough time working on things for LP to express some
concerns about how things work. And expressing concerns is one
way to initiate change.
Thanks for sharing!
Carl
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
