On 2020/02/07 09:19:03, hanwenn wrote: > On 2020/02/06 14:29:55, Dan Eble wrote: > More code means more maintenance liability, so unless > it either solves a problem, or it simplifies the existing system, it would be a > net negative.
You're preaching to the choir. > I would really like the problem defined before we try solving it. [...] > I hope I am not demoralizing you It's a good thing you threw in that last part, because from over here it was sounding rather like you resented my posting this for review. I'll try to keep my reply descriptive. I have seen that mailing-list discussions on detailed design--even for features people recognize they need, but especially for those they don't--do not go far or fast. I suppose it's because few people have the level of familiarity, the current interest, or the time to devote to written communication on those topics. I'm not blaming them; it's just my diagnosis. Posting a review gives them something concrete to comment on, and that gets a discussion going. I have the sense that most of my successful contributions have gone this way. Is this approach as effective as one that might be taken by a professional software development team? No, but my code is in LilyPond. Are the factors that make this the most effective approach in this context going to change? Not likely. > I hope I am not demoralizing you Well, it's a dilemma: friction either way. I spent an hour composing this reasoned reply. What I was hoping for was any of the following kinds of feedback. Looking past the little lecture on process, I see some of them starting to come through; so, thank you. 1. pointers to potential applications (thanks, David et al.) 2. The implementation looks sane, but I can't think of a place we would use this currently. I think you should ping us when your experiments with it are more mature. 3. I haven't looked at the implementation, but I can't think of a place we would use this currently. I think you should ping us when your experiments are more mature. 4. You can approximate this already with X; would that work for you? 5. Speaking as a user, I'm not sure where I'd apply this, but calling it X would be more appropriate. 6. This is fantastic! I've been working around not having this for decades! https://codereview.appspot.com/581600043/