[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: order of engravers
From: |
Neil Puttock |
Subject: |
Re: order of engravers |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:50:55 +0100 |
On 28 April 2010 13:41, 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.
I agree, there's no point in providing automated documentation unless
the dependencies are also resolved automatically (which turns it from
being a quick frog task into something a bit more involved).
There's already limited support for ordering via the method
Translator::must_be_last () (and must-be-last in a scheme engraver),
which is used to ensure Axis_group_engraver is always the last
engraver in a context definition.
Cheers,
Neil
- Re: order of engravers, (continued)
- Re: order of engravers, Kieren MacMillan, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, David Kastrup, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, Carl Sorensen, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, David Kastrup, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, Graham Percival, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, David Kastrup, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, Carl Sorensen, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, David Kastrup, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers, Graham Percival, 2010/04/28
- Re: order of engravers,
Neil Puttock <=
Re: order of engravers, Graham Percival, 2010/04/28