On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 8:43 AM Andrew Bernard <andrew.bern...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi JanPeter, > > <snip> > > One thing that concerns me with lilypond at the present is what I see > as a sort of balkanisation of code. We have LSR, OLL, and people > making one-shot GIT repos, and it's all very fragmented. I don't think > this is good for newcomers, and splitting like this is never good for > open source projects. I can see the arguments for all these ways of > making add-ons for lilypond, but it worries me. Yes, LSR is for > snippets and exemplars, not necessarily for full blown code as OLL is, > but lately there has been a lot of the latter in LSR that I feel could > be in OLL. > Balkanization is of concern to me as well. Although in the past, I was against having a Lilypond stackexchange be official, my recent experience with TeX stackexchange has caused me to wonder if we should make an "official" LilyPond stackexchange to replace the user list. But this may be a thread hijack. > > And then there is this sort of impedance mismatch balkanisation - I > think OLL should be a feeder into lilypond core, but it appears this > may never happen. I'd like to promote that idea more. One example > comes to mind: \shapeII. I have hammered this to a high degree in > thousands of uses in hundreds of pages of scores over the years. Yes > there is a small corner case bug or two with it, but nothing stopping > it going into lilypond I think. It's probably the function I use in > lilypond more than any other one. In other words, purely from my > experience, I think it is pretty well tested and would be a good > candidate for inclusion. Some of the pedal work that Harm and I did > ought to be in lilypond also I think. What I am saying is that I see > OLL as a long term incubator for lilypond features. Just a couple of > ideas from me. > If \shapeII is production ready, then I'm OK with adding it. But is should NOT be named \shapeII when it goes into core. It should be something like \shapeControl. \shapeII reflects the history that it came after the creation of \shape. \shape might even be better, but since we have code out there that uses \shape but is not \shapeII compliant, we can't really use \shape. Thanks, Carl
