Re: thinking of submitting divisi snippet to LSR; comments?

[Phil Holmes]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shevek" <address@hidden>
To: <address@hidden>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:07 AM
Subject: thinking of submitting divisi snippet to LSR; comments?


> Hi all,
>
> I wrote a snippet several months ago to facilitate notating divisi staves,
> but I couldn't submit it to LSR because LSR was on 2.12 until recently. 
> Now
> that LSR has been updated to 2.14, I'd love to get some comments on my
> snippet before I submit it. It's a bit long, so I've attached it as a 
> file.
>
> My snippet relies on code from a couple other snippets already included in
> LSR. What is the best way to deal with that for submission to LSR?
>
> Right now, there are some situations, all involving partcombine, that 
> still
> cause some undesired behavior and error messages. I've included test cases
> for all of these issues in the file. I'd really appreciate any suggestions
> on how to solve some of these errors (though of course I'll keep working 
> on
> it in the mean time).
>
> http://old.nabble.com/file/p34084271/divisi_test2.ly divisi_test2.ly


The general aim of the LSR is not to be too prescriptive about what users 
put there for other users to find and use.  However, to be useful in this 
way, it works best if snippets are short and easily understood.  They should 
really also compile error free.  From this perspective I would see problems 
with your proposed snippet - I think it's trying to demonstrate too much in 
a single snippet - I would be tempted to split it into 4 snippets, each 
illustrating a single partcombine feature.  I would also work to get rid of 
the errors, if necessary by creating tiny snippets for each and raising bug 
reports.

Finally, I think refererencing other snippets is fine - I would flag this in 
the comment

% This idea taken from LSR 123

or similar.

--
Phil Holmes