Re: that acciaccatura issue

[David Kastrup]

Flaming Hakama by Elaine <address@hidden> writes:

> Wouldn't it have been better to just provide a response to the first
> reasonable request?

What kept you from doing so?

At any rate, the "minimal example" note was brought by Simon, a few
not-really-helpful hints based on the non-minimal example came from
others including yours truly, and Harm provided the actual analysis
after minimalizing the existing example.

So the non-minimality contributed to a few bad answers.  Now the
"minimal example" admonishment was probably a bit over the top, trying
to fend for the champions of the list maybe a bit more than they'd have
needed.  But the general gist is not incorrect.  To mitigate some of the
bad blood spent over it, Harm put in quite some effort expounding the
process of creating a minimal example.

Basically, it was an attempt of making this converge to a community
effort again.  The somewhat spread out effort and result overwhelmed
Mark to a degree where I am afraid that less registered than if we had
just left all the work and justification to Harm, providing a single
somewhat coherent voice rather than mob help.

Maybe we can do better next time.  This turned out to be a bad mixture
of group dynamics and involved personalities.

-- 
David Kastrup