Knut Petersen <knut_peter...@t-online.de> writes: >> >>> Well, you might remember that there is code >>> <https://sourceforge.net/p/testlilyissues/issues/4509/> that improves >>> the current LyricExtender syntax. >> Uh no, it doesn't? It _removes_ the current LyricExtender syntax, then >> tries to do the right thing by itself. >> >> Interpreting user input sensibly and ignoring user input altogether are >> not the same thing. >> > Yes, it removes the current LyricExtender syntax and automatically > adds extenders where the notation standard requests extenders. But the > user is free to override this behavior at any time. The patch also > fixes some bugs (e.g. extenders should not extend under grace notes > belonging to the next moment)
It's more like "extenders should not extend under notes in small print". That was what I was trying to figure a way around last. > and allows to force extenders at places where current lilypond simply > is unable to generate extenders and requires the user to use the > underscore character from the lyric font as a poor replacement ... The patch requires more work to work reliably and the amount of work and its invasiveness did not fit into the 2.20 release time frame. Also the belligerent and take-it-or-leave-it attitude of its creator made it both unpleasant and labor intensive to work on and required a lot more of my own initiative to get it into committable state than it turned out I was able to muster. Yes, this is still unfinished business and no, my own involvement with it being unfinished is less than fabulous. But harping won't get the work done. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list bug-lilypond@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
