Re: Fix for Issue 620. (issue4814041)

[address@hidden]

On Jul 24, 2011, at 11:22 PM, Neil Puttock wrote:

> On 24 July 2011 09:55, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Why is it a bad thing to do it this way?  Currently, the 
>> Beam_collision_engraver implements dynamic filtering based on interface, and 
>> I don't think there's a problem with that (it is the only way to make it 
>> ignore certain grobs on the fly).
> 
> I don't like the name.  We already have `core interfaces'; they're
> grob-interface, item-interface and spanner-interface.
> 

Ah, OK.  I can change it. How about horizontal-alignment-interfaces?

>> Creating a new interface would be OK but would make it harder to filter out 
>> interfaces on the fly (people would have to override a grob's "meta" 
>> property, which seems hard).
> 
> Do you have a scenario whereby a user might want to override this?
> 

No, but I think the question should be "are we 100% sure that a user wouldn't 
want to override this?"  As I am not an authority on the subject and I just 
picked the interfaces populating the core-interfaces list based on personal 
predilections, I cannot guarantee that this list is not something that 
shouldn't be overridden in certain instances.  When in doubt, I try to leave as 
much of my code as possible open to Scheme overrides.

Cheers,
MS