Re: OT: pagenumber

[David Kastrup]

Simon Albrecht <address@hidden> writes:

> On 04.03.2016 22:53, Blöchl Bernhard wrote:
>
>> A much better solution might be (just as a question/recommendation)
>> not to strain a simple minded user like me with such subtleties.
>
> This is not a ‘subtlety’ but a fundamental design principle; as a
> matter of fact, one cannot make thorough use of LilyPond without
> escaped Scheme expressions.  And IMO it’s better to give an honest and
> clear explanation here, to avoid later confusion.

If we can avoid the confusion by other means at reasonable cost
(explaining ##f every time it is used would not be reasonable), nothing
wrong with redundancy.

However, all suggestions take effort of various kinds to implement.  The
more work someone hoping to see a change invests into outlining this
change (with the optimum being a submitted patch&issue), the better is
the probability that it will be picked up and implemented according to
his plan.

Finding all occurences and proposing exact text replacements would
already be a big help since that "only" requires use of editor and other
tools for a developer rather than his own creativity.

The more vague a proposal is, the less probable it is that someone will
actually act on it.  Of course, the more work one invests, the more
frustrating it might be when _still_ nobody acts on it.  While there are
no guarantees, I continue being impressed at the amount of developers
who actually do pick up documentation suggestions and create patches for
them.

-- 
David Kastrup