Re: GLISS

[David Kastrup]

Noeck <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi,
>
> while reading in old forum threads, I wondered:
> What happend to GLISS? Is there a summary somewhere?

Some things were done, others not.  There was quite a heated discussion
about

a) designing syntax in advance and prescribing it
b) locking down syntax

I've been a major killjoy on the discussions because I insisted that it
does not make much sense to fix plans when the technical underpinnings
and their potential for making LilyPond more consistent and/or more
powerful are not clear and there is nobody who would actually put
predescribed work into code who would not usually have a better grasp of
feasibilities than a committee of users.

I also have been opposed to tying down aspects of LilyPond's syntax
prematurely when quite a lot is left to be desired.

> I know that many proposals were actually included in LilyPond.

Not really all that much.  \tuplet was one such thing, and the actual
syntax and implementation ended up different from what the discussion
had arrived at.  For good reasons, and with good results.  And there
were significant changes even after the first draft patches by a code
technician.

A major change (and simplification) in override/set/revert syntax came
about more or less spontaneously as a result of trying to make this
syntax more accessible to music functions.  It never was an issue in
GLISS and planning it independently from the music function symbol list
issue would have been rather problematic.

> Are there ideas which are still worked on?

Don't know of any falling under the "still worked on" umbrella.  Work
happens all the time, and sometimes it makes old wishlist items come
into accessible range and/or a new light.

-- 
David Kastrup