[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: parallelMusic and repeat
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: parallelMusic and repeat |
Date: |
Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:16:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1.50 (gnu/linux) |
Alexander Kobel <address@hidden> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>> Alexander Kobel <address@hidden> 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 am not talking about whether to use or not \parallelMusic, but whether
it belongs in the core rather than the LSR in its current state. And
whether one should consider it a bug that it breaks under several
circumstances.
"I am not surprised that it breaks" does not really address that.
> 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.
Mostly I am in favor of making it work. As consistently as not suddenly
become useless for certain standard situations, and such that Lilypond
file readers other than Lilypond (for example, convert-ly) have a chance
to get it right.
And while its behavior with regard to repeats and relative notes is not
what a user would expect, I am not in favor of declaring the existing
state "standard".
--
David Kastrup
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, (continued)
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Mats Bengtsson, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, David Kastrup, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Graham Percival, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Alexander Kobel, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, David Kastrup, 2009/12/08
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Alexander Kobel, 2009/12/08
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, David Kastrup, 2009/12/08
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Alexander Kobel, 2009/12/08
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Nicolas Sceaux, 2009/12/12
Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Federico Bruni, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Alexander Kobel, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Federico Bruni, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Alexander Kobel, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, Federico Bruni, 2009/12/07
- Re: parallelMusic and repeat, David Kastrup, 2009/12/07