Alexander Kobel <n...@a-kobel.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> Alexander Kobel <n...@a-kobel.de> writes: >>>> -Eluze <elu...@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> i think \parallelMusic is just thought for a quick and easy input - >>>>> without sophisticated structuring of a piece! >>> Although it's an example of a functionality that IMHO is to valuable >>> to be hidden inside the LSR without mentioning it in the NR, >> >> If it is valuable, doing it properly should be a priority. The current >> workflow does not seem to make the requisite bug reports/tasks appear in >> parallel with the first draft implementation of a feature. > > I also can't remember an enhancement request asking for, say, > \vspace. It was written by someone (Nicolas?) who needed it, someone > found it, thought: Hey, that's cool, and well, now it's there, without > standardization. I'd not be surprised if you can find errors there, or > "unspecified behaviour" - e.g., what's the width of this "invisible > object"? - but that does not impair its right to exist.
We are not talking about "right to exist", but standard, part of core, being supported in eternity by convert-ly and whatever else that implies. >>> and having it in the core at least gives a /little bit/ of >>> standardization. >> >> Standardization does not mean "let's call the current inconsistent >> ad-hoc behavior standard". A standard needs to make sense of its >> own, not just be a side-effect of a particular implementation. > > Ah, come on. Of course your reasoning is correct, I know. I do believe > in standards, as well, and as often as I can I try to use and > propagate them. > But there's a whole bunch of great standards, which deeply lack one > thing: proper implementation and support (remember CSS and > XHTML?). And there's a bunch of great features, as well, which don't > follow a well-defined standard, but are incredibly valuable from a > practical point of view. So where is your point? Remember: the issue was _standardization_, as quoted from your posting above. > It's one thing to try to refine the latter, but as long as they get me > my work done, I surely won't reject them for purely ideological > reasons, and rather stick to defaults than standards. So why are _you_ then talking about "standardization"? > And it's being in the core means I have more-or-less well defined > behaviour, which I can rely on even when reading code from others or > myself, later on. No, well-defined means first of all _defined_. And _defined_ needs a _definition_. Code that is not an implementation of a definition is not the same. Because then _by_ _definition_ the code is not buggy and can't be improved, because it _is_ the definition. > I'm not saying it's not worth it, but it's quite an involved task. > And I really don't get why we demonize the current state. I mean, > although it's a hack: What actually /is/ bad about \parallelMusic? That it breaks in incoherent ways and circumstances that you could not guess from looking at its manual page, or from any inherent features from the "definition". -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
