Re: BendSpanner-engraver

[David Nalesnik]

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Trevor Daniels <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> David Nalesnik wrote Wednesday, September 14, 2016 1:33 AM
> Subject: Re: BendSpanner-engraver
>
>
>> Hi Harm,
>>
>> This looks marvelous!  I know nothing about the notation, but the demo
>> file is simply beautiful to behold.
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Thomas Morley <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 2016-09-11 20:38 GMT+02:00 Trevor Daniels <address@hidden>:
>>>> Hi Harm
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a fretted-string player, but this looks very impressive!  This 
>>>> will be a tremendous addition to LP!
>>>>
>>>> Trevor
>>>
>>> Hi Trevor,
>>>
>>> currently the whole thing is more at pre-pre-alpha state ;)
>>> Though, with David Nalesniks MeasureCounter we have at least one other
>>> grob defined entirely in scheme, iirc.
>>
>> It is.
>>
>>> This encourages me :)
>>>
>>
>> It would be simple enough to move the bits into the various files.
>> This will be very satisfying in the case of bend-grob-defs.ly!
>>
>> One drawback, of course, is the issue of automatic documentation.
>> There will be information in the IR (grob, interface, event), but the
>> engraver won't be represented.
>
> Could we not simply add a dummy .cc engraver which simply calls
> the ADD_TRANSLATOR macro?  Maybe just one could document
> all Scheme engravers with several such calls.  Worth a try?
>

I wonder if there would be a namespace conflict.  I'll defer to others here.

Of course, Harm's engraver is based on a rewrite of a C++ engraver.
It appears to me from a glance that not much has changed from the
rewrite.  So it stands to reason that converting this to C++ would be
a matter of simple substitution.

This of course sidesteps the issue of documentation for Scheme
engravers, which would be nice to have.

David