Joe Neeman <joenee...@gmail.com> writes: [...]
>> p.s. Despite [As a result of?] banging my head against this >> particular wall, I think I learned a little about Scheme + >> Lilypond... that's some consolation! =) > > If it's any additional consolation, your approach would have been > perfectly ok were it not for the idiosyncrasies of Accidental. Wouldn't it make more sense then first to apply his approach, and then make sure that it actually works as intended? It would appear to me that this would cause fewer surprises and maintenance headaches in future. It would appear that his approach was foiled by kinks in the current implementation, and the long-term solution should prefer getting rid of kinks rather than adding new ones. Note that I don't have any actual knowledge of the code: it is just that this conversation sets off my alarm bells. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
