David Kastrup wrote:
Alexander Kobel <n...@a-kobel.de> writes:
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. [...]
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"?
Hum. To my understanding, the point why Eluze and you recommend not to
use \parallelMusic is the lack of a standard for it - which, IMHO,
misses the opportunity to ease your work, regardless of the current
state of implementation and/or defintion of the command.
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".
And to the rest of your mail, especially this last point: my apologies,
I think I overdid. Count me as convinced, and I guess our opinions
regarding what /should/ be actually aren't that different anyway...
I'll make a better use of my time, and try to put together an example of
why I'm still in favor of it. Although I'm not that sure anymore if it's
a good idea to push that to the LSR.
Cheers,
Alexander
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
