Alexander Kobel <n...@a-kobel.de> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: >> -Eluze <elu...@gmail.com> writes: >>> i think \parallelMusic is just thought for a quick and easy input - >>> without sophisticated structuring of a piece! >> >> In my personal opinion, tools of "quick and easy" nature that do not fit >> well with the rest of Lilypond, partly because a "proper" implementation >> would require quite more invasive changes, don't belong in the core >> language but in the LSR. > > To be honest: +1. > Although it's an example of a functionality that IMHO is to valuable > to be hidden inside the LSR without mentioning it in the NR,
If it is valuable, doing it properly should be a priority. The current workflow does not seem to make the requisite bug reports/tasks appear in parallel with the first draft implementation of a feature. > and having it in the core at least gives a /little bit/ of > standardization. Standardization does not mean "let's call the current inconsistent ad-hoc behavior standard". A standard needs to make sense of its own, not just be a side-effect of a particular implementation. The proper order of things is to _first_ make something work consistently, _then_ elevate it to the level of "standard". Calling it "standard" before means you have to support something (for example in convert-ly) that is not really coherent. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
