[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BendSpanner-engraver
From: |
David Nalesnik |
Subject: |
Re: BendSpanner-engraver |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:34:11 -0500 |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:29 AM, David Nalesnik
<address@hidden> wrote:
> 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.
>
And (I just remembered) being able to add Scheme engravers to the
desired contexts in engraver-init.ly.
- Re: BendSpanner-engraver, (continued)
Re: BendSpanner-engraver, Paul, 2016/09/12
Re: BendSpanner-engraver, David Nalesnik, 2016/09/13
Re: BendSpanner-engraver, Federico Bruni, 2016/09/16