Re: Suggestion: spacing for swing music?

[David Kastrup]

bb <address@hidden> writes:

> Am 04.08.2013 16:21, schrieb David Kastrup:
>> bb <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

>>> Try this:
>> And then an example where the rhythms don't add up and it is quite
>> unclear what it is supposed to show.  And the entire text for all of
>> that is "Try this:".
>>
>> Seriously: if you want people to pay attention to you, you should try to
>> provide a minimum of information and explanation.  Just dumping some
>> code is not going to bring your point across all by itself.
>>
> The start of the thread *Suggestion: spacing for swing music?
> *from 2013/7/13 was the question for*
> **spacing to show the correct timing and notation of swing music*.
>
> If you think my code does not relate to this topic and is eventually
> useless, please simply trash it and the other responses!

It "relates" to this topic, but it is utterly unclear how it is supposed
to relate to the topic.  If you think that people will now gather up the
complete thread manually and then try to guess what your latest posting
is supposed to show in the context of what that has ever been posted to
this thread in the last four days, I am pretty sure you will be
disappointed.

> I am sure you have administration rights.

I think you are mistaking an archived mailing list with a tightly
controlled and moderated web forum.  The content of the mailing list is
exclusively the responsibility of the mailing list participants.  Spam
will get removed, and the list owners might get asked to remove clearly
illegal content.  But that's it.

Nobody is going to remove mails that don't make sense on their own, and
quite surely nobody is going to invest the work reconstructing something
that makes sense from isolated mails.  People read mailing list articles
interspersed with their normal mail.  Every article needs to make sense
on its own, if necessary, by quoting _exactly_ those contexts from
previous discussions (and nothing else) that is needed for making a
single article make sense on its own.

You think I am attacking you and am out to remove your mails.  Instead I
am telling you what you need to do in order to make _anybody_ actually
bother about your mails.  I am not making the decisions for people what
they want to read and analyze and what not.  I am merely telling you
that it's unlikely people will bother if you make it unnecessarily hard
for them to help you or consider your interests.

A mail on this list is written once, and likely read several hundred of
times.  It makes good sense for that reason that the writer tries his
best of not causing _unnecessary_ work for the reader.

Now your goal appears to have some specific functionality available.
You don't exactly quote what, you write a lot of wrong statements about
what LilyPond can or can not do, and then you post some example for
which it is totally unclear what it is supposed to demonstrate.

Our bug squad, a team of volunteers processing the bug list regularly,
will not be able to write a coherent feature request from that.  They
are not core programmers of LilyPond, and they only have a few minutes
to invest per mail.

A core programmer investing an hour of sleuth work on the whole mailing
list thread may figure out some idea of what you are talking about.  I'm
not going to invest that time myself, but of course I will not keep
others from doing so.  But I think that the person best qualified to
make sense of your mails by far is yourself.  If you are not willing to
do it, why should others?

-- 
David Kastrup