Re: Adjusting OttavaBracket parameters (was "Re: can't seem to apply tweaks on tweaks")

[Thomas Morley]

2016-01-01 22:13 GMT+01:00 Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden>:
> Hi David,
>
>> To me it would appear that in this case by far the lion's share of the
>> work is digging through reference books (incidentally, I don't have any
>> of those),

Don't have any as well

>> devising a good plan for the desired behavior, checking with
>> the current behavior, figuring out where the differences are,
>> cross-checking with other line spanners,

For cross-checking visual appearance with other line spanners the
attached pdf to my mail here
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2016-01/msg00005.html
could give a starting point.

>> abstracting useful
>> commonalities and differences and only ultimately touching the code.

I general: sounds like a plan.

>
> If OttavaBracket simply supported line-spanner-interface (as per my feature 
> request in a previous email), and I submitted a reasonable set of defaults 
> and syntactic sugar — based on the many reference books (which, incidentally, 
> I *do* have) — we’d satisfy 99.5% of the OttavaBracket needs of 99.5% of the 
> Lilypond user base.
>
> Getting that done in a short amount of time seems like a far better idea (to 
> me) than spending multiple hours cross-checking other spanners, etc., and 
> possibly not rolling out such useful features in the foreseeable future.
>
> It’s funny: I have been taken to task more than one time on this list for 
> defining too large and vague a feature/request. Now an incredibly focused and 
> well-defined task (“make OttavaBracket support line-spanner-interface”) is 
> apparently too small and/or specific?

In general, even a feature-request which is well-defined and short
worded may involve a lot more then expected. ;)

Cheers,
  Harm