:)
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:10 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Wim van Dommelen <m...@wimvd.nl> wrote:
>>> Compared with the \clef behaviour, I see this variant:
>>> melody = { \relative c='4 d e f g f e d c \absolute c,, d,, e,, f,,
>>> g,, \relative c=' d e f }
>>
>> I think this may be technically impossible (or at least ugly,
>> inelegant, prone to errors, weird exceptions and unpleasant
>> surprises).
>
> Is that your own opinion, or are you just reciting my standard reaction
> to syntax change proposals?
It was my somewhat-informed guess based on what i've learned from
GLISS discussions.
>> i think we should trust David if he says that wouldn't be feasible.
>
> Well, if we look at it in "temporal order", I have not had a chance to
> voice my infeasibility rant for this particular proposal before your
> comment. I did so a few minutes ago, however. If you had delayed
> sending your posting until then, it would have avoided the impression
> that I am awfully predictable.
>
> On the other hand, there might be some correlation between "this looks
> like something David would call a bad idea" and something being a bad
> idea that is significant beyond what can be attributed to the "not
> invented here" syndrome.
I'm sorry if i made the impression that you're awfully predictable -
that certainly wansn't my intention. I think that the situation
should be interpreted more in the spirit of your second observation.
In other words, i believe that there is significant correlation
between "this looks like something David would call a bad idea" and
something being a bad idea indeed.
best,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
