On 07/07/11 18:08, n.putt...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Anthony, > > When we discussed this last year, I argued that it shouldn't be part of > the Chord_name_engraver. I still think this approach is misguided since > we already have a convenient way of generating chord name markup via the > formatter function.
Except I still think you haven't grasped the point of this ... And I think you were alone in thinking the formatter function was the right place. Bear in mind that it would require editing EVERY formatter, whereas here I am just making a (small) modification to the engraver. > > If you check the archives, you'll see a proof-of-concept patch I posted > which shows how easy it would be to implement this enhancement in scheme > via the existing chord name formatting code. 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. I really can't understand why having to modify EVERY formatter is better than having to modify ONE engraver. > > Cheers, > Neil > Cheers, Wol _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
