[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: markup-command and markup-command-list signatures
From: |
Carl Sorensen |
Subject: |
Re: markup-command and markup-command-list signatures |
Date: |
Mon, 3 May 2010 08:04:37 -0600 |
On 5/2/10 8:38 PM, "Boris Shingarov" <address@hidden> wrote:
> I am working on a system of markups which allows to specify more
> flexible formatting rules. WE are using it for things like multi-line
> embedded scores, mixing them with markup lines, rules about what things
> / combinations of things should not start / end a line, also there are
> rules like "no line break between certain words and beginning ebmbedded
> score", that kind of formatting rules. I had described some of these
> ideas in my earlier posts on this list. Markup functions being able
> to return a list of stencils. Much more importantly, markups need to
> be aware of what was placed before, and what is to follow, therefore
> when processing the markup-list, we need to pass a continuation at each
> step, instead of iterating over the list. This kind of ideas.
>
> It even sort of works. Well, works enough for production use by
> non-programmer users. But still far from being a general Lilypond
> improvement. The other, easier improvements (orphan-avoiding
> functionality, page-breaking fixes), are making it fine into the
> upstream repo: for those, going from the happy state of having the
> user's problem fixed, to the happier state of fixing it for everyone,
> is of a reasonable proportion compared to the whole amount of work.
> But with my markup changes, it's much different. Even the first and
> simplest of these changes (patch 207105), to go from the current state
> to an actual submittable patch, will take like 2x the time it took to
> get it to solve the user's probem.
Why do you think it will take 2x the time it took to write it?
I've reviewed the patch; the only problems I see are minor indentation and
formatting issues. I'm surprised, because the patch set says it's 2 months
old, but I can't find any reference to issue 207105 in the -devel or the
-user archives. So this is the first time I've known that the patch is
available for review. If I've missed it, I'm sorry.
> For the bigger problems, like the
> "markup needs to know what's before and what's ahead", or for the
> integrated text/embedded-score flow, I don't know, could be up to 5x,
> and now we are suddenly looking at problems of user value, and all the
> repercussions.
I don't agree with that assessment. My observation is that the time need to
turn a solution into an acceptable patch is roughly constant. So the
fraction of time spent on fixing things up is much less for a large patch
than for a small patch.
> So there is development happening which is important
> to users (= enables a serious academic publication through a top-name
> publisher), but those contributions can not be used better than just
> being thrown away by the community.
Absolutely. I agree.
I'll comment on your Rietveld patch.
Thanks,
Carl
- Re: Rietveld review, (continued)
- Re: Rietveld review, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Rietveld review, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
- Re: Rietveld review, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/06
- Re: Rietveld review, Christian Hitz, 2010/05/06
- Re: Rietveld review, Carl Sorensen, 2010/05/04
- Re: Rietveld review, David Kastrup, 2010/05/04
Re: markup-command and markup-command-list signatures,
Carl Sorensen <=
Re: markup-command and markup-command-list signatures, Boris Shingarov, 2010/05/03