On 7 July 2011 19:09, Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> wrote: > Which I probably didn't understand :-) BUT from what I remember did you > think that feeding a chord of, say, C into the formatter should chuck > out A as its result? Which is NOT what this does - it has to chuck out > both C *and* A. Bear in mind - that for EVERY chord the formatter has to > be run TWICE, so modifying all the formatters to loop will be a pain, > then anybody writing a new formatter has to remember to make it loop, > etc etc.
Why don't you apply the patch first before jumping to conclusions? > I really can't understand why having to modify EVERY formatter is better > than having to modify ONE engraver. We don't manupulate markup in engravers unless it's trivial (e.g., centring the octavation on a clef in the Clef_engraver). Cheers, Neil _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
