David Kastrup wrote: > In short, we are going down a road now where any > user-visible improvement (for which the necessity is > clear) will become increasingly painful to do for both > developers and users. > > Since obviously I am alone with this opinion among the > developers, I would suggest polling the users on the > Lilypond user list whether they think this change a step > in the right direction and desirable for 2.14. > > After all, they will be affected most.
I just want to state (for the record), that I think the points David has raised are important ones. I didn't want to start a war here (and I don't think I did), but I wanted to expose and confront what I saw as a problem. And now, thanks to David's eloquence, I think we all see the problem. I think this is a good time to rethink how LilyPond uses the \markup command. Perhaps the code is too casual in this respect? It would be nice instead to have a more semantic command vocabulary to replace top-level markups, for example: \alternateVerse \footnote \dialogue \stageDirections ...or whatever. Then, \markup could be used really as an un-semantic backup command for cases when nothing else fits. Personally, I think \footnote would be a good place to start. On the topic of this actual thread, I have a patch all ready to go -- http://codereview.appspot.com/2505041/ -- but I'm in no real rush, and I'm happy to wait for everyone to converge on a realistic proposal for a long-term solution, even if it's totally different. So let me know what you guys think I should do with my patch. Thanks. - Mark _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel