On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 09:31:54AM +0100, James E. Bailey wrote: > I realise it's only been a week since this was last discussed, but: > a) no one who can say whether or not this can be implemented has > responded (ever)
Yes, this can be implemented. I have no clue how complicated this may be, but due to Church-Turing thesis and C++'s Turing-completeness, it is possible to implement it. > c) Can we just make the change so that more people aren't confused by > the issue. (I've answered another question related to this in the last > week) Yes, please do. Carl can help you get started as a Frog; we desperately need more people writing patches for such problems. > While we're on the subject, can I put in my two cents that voices don't > just up and die when they don't have anything to do? Having to keep > voices alive is sometimes annoying. There's probably good reasons why dying voices are good, but I can't see anybody objecting to a special #'keep-alive property. Looking forward to your patch for this! Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
