Re: order of engravers

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 4/28/10 6:41 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:

[...]

>> And if each engraver specifies what engravers it is relying on in a
>> machine-readable manner (or the respective order in which it wants to be
>> applied), then Lilypond can actually do the required sorting and figure
>> out a proper order at runtime.
>
> Patches thoughtfully considered.

Any proposal that is not worth even thinking about before a complete
patch is provided is not worth the work of creating the patch in the
first place.

Unless, of course, one considers one's own head a more precious resource
than that of would-be contributors.

This half-sentence reply is a frequent occurence on this list, but it
comes across as "buzz off, underling, until you prove yourself more
worthy of our attention".

I think that not answering at all would be better than answering like
that.  Because it is pretty much the same as "End of discussion for now.
Period."  And that may keep other readers from thinking about the
proposal and contributing more constructive replies.

In particular when this half-sentence is the _only_ original
contribution in the reply, it suggests that the amount of thought that
the original poster has spent on some issue is not even worth a
whole-sentence reply.

If you really want to have a standard put-off for things you don't want
to think about, you may use the following paragraph free of charge for
copy and pasting:

    That sounds like it could be useful.  Would you be willing to start
    working on an actual implementation?  That would greatly improve the
    likelihood of this feature becoming a part of Lilypond.

Or, if you prefer a patch:

diff -u /tmp/insolence /tmp/insolence2
--- /tmp/insolence      2010-04-28 18:25:54.673977605 +0200
+++ /tmp/insolence2     2010-04-28 18:27:02.956127873 +0200
@@ -125,7 +125,9 @@
 > applied), then Lilypond can actually do the required sorting and figure
 > out a proper order at runtime.
 
-Patches thoughtfully considered.
+That sounds like it could be useful.  Would you be willing to start
+working on an actual implementation?  That would greatly improve the
+likelihood of this feature becoming a part of Lilypond.
 
 Carl
 

Should I put it up on Rietveld for discussion?

-- 
David Kastrup