Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
LGTM; since it's just a snippet now, I support pushing it directly as long as it compiles. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
The basic question is this: is this test helpful for programmers? At first glance I'd say that it is, provided that you update the syntax as David suggested. IMO it takes a pretty silly example for something to *not* be a helpful test case. Sure, having complicated scheme here might mean that future changes to some scheme interfaces would need to update this file as well, but IMO that's a perfectly legitimate function of a regtest! Now, this test might be useful as a LSR snippet as well, so you may want to consider sending it there (at least once LSR supports 2.16). Until that happens, it could got to Documentation/snippets/new, but I recommend asking James or Phil to handle that part of it. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
Hello, On 24 March 2012 08:19, wrote: > On 2012/03/23 21:46:41, Pavel Roskin wrote: >> >> OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to > > strip all >> >> Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of > > the >> >> Lilypond documentation. > > > In LilyPond itself, it makes sense to document the latest version. If > people read 2.16 documentation, they can't expect to see stuff that is > guaranteed to work under 2.14. > > It is not uncommon for some new features to be only discernible from > regtests. That is not really good. This is the current state for > Scheme engravers. It would be good to have some nice examples for > Scheme engravers in the documentation. > > This particular case is, in my opinion, too complex for either > documentation or a targeted regtest. It is LSR material, or should > become part of LilyPond proper if one can think of a good way. Note > that we have snippets in the LilyPond documentation/repository as well: > those can use the newest features. That would be the proper place, I > think. > > We still need to get Scheme engravers into the main documentation. We have this http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1995 We could incorporate 'Scheme stuff' via this. As I;ve always said, although I don't understand this from a technical point of view if someone can articulate what they want in text form I can do the texinfo 'stuff' to get it in the doc. I'm not sure if the NR is the correct place as opposed to a new @node (or similar) in Extending or whatever. James ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
On 2012/03/23 21:46:41, Pavel Roskin wrote: OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to strip all Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of the Lilypond documentation. In LilyPond itself, it makes sense to document the latest version. If people read 2.16 documentation, they can't expect to see stuff that is guaranteed to work under 2.14. It is not uncommon for some new features to be only discernible from regtests. That is not really good. This is the current state for Scheme engravers. It would be good to have some nice examples for Scheme engravers in the documentation. This particular case is, in my opinion, too complex for either documentation or a targeted regtest. It is LSR material, or should become part of LilyPond proper if one can think of a good way. Note that we have snippets in the LilyPond documentation/repository as well: those can use the newest features. That would be the proper place, I think. We still need to get Scheme engravers into the main documentation. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
OK, I'll use make-engraver in the next revision. I guess I'll need to strip all Lilypond 2.14 compatibility stuff if this snippet is to be a part of the Lilypond documentation. I missed scheme engravers because I was looking for "\consists #" on one line, my bad. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
On 2012/03/23 13:04:19, Pavel Roskin wrote: This is also the first use of a scheme engraver in input/regression. Apart from scheme-engraver.ly, scheme-engraver-instance.ly, and scheme-text-spanner.ly. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Re: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/diff/2001/input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly File input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly (right): http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/diff/2001/input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly#newcode100 input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly:100: `((acknowledgers Why don't you use make-engraver here? Instead of the backquoted list, you write (make-engraver (acknowledgers ((stem-interface trans grob source) (set! stems (cons grob stems ((process-acknowledged trans) (make-stem-spans! ctx stems trans) (set! stems '( It is easier on the eyes. http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems (issue 5882053)
Reviewers: , Message: This is also the first use of a scheme engraver in input/regression. Description: Add an example implementation of cross-staff stems Please review this at http://codereview.appspot.com/5882053/ Affected files: A input/regression/stem-cross-staff-engraver.ly ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
