Re: Adjusting OttavaBracket parameters (was "Re: can't seem to apply tweaks on tweaks")

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> Hi David,
>
>> To me it would appear that in this case by far the lion's share of the
>> work is digging through reference books (incidentally, I don't have any
>> of those), devising a good plan for the desired behavior, checking with
>> the current behavior, figuring out where the differences are,
>> cross-checking with other line spanners, abstracting useful
>> commonalities and differences and only ultimately touching the code.
>
> If OttavaBracket simply supported line-spanner-interface (as per my
> feature request in a previous email), and I submitted a reasonable set
> of defaults and syntactic sugar — based on the many reference books
> (which, incidentally, I *do* have) — we’d satisfy 99.5% of the
> OttavaBracket needs of 99.5% of the Lilypond user base.
>
> Getting that done in a short amount of time seems like a far better
> idea (to me) than spending multiple hours cross-checking other
> spanners, etc., and possibly not rolling out such useful features in
> the foreseeable future.
>
> It’s funny: I have been taken to task more than one time on this list
> for defining too large and vague a feature/request. Now an incredibly
> focused and well-defined task (“make OttavaBracket support
> line-spanner-interface”) is apparently too small and/or specific?

It is trivial to let OttavaBracket contain line-spanner-interface which
is just a label for a set of properties.  What those properties do
depends on actual code, however.  It's common that different grobs react
somewhat differently (or not at all) to particular properties.

So it's quite trivial to complete the "well-defined" task without doing
anything remotely useful.

-- 
David Kastrup