bb <[email protected]> writes: > Am 04.08.2013 16:21, schrieb David Kastrup: >> bb <[email protected]> writes:
[...] >>> Try this: >> And then an example where the rhythms don't add up and it is quite >> unclear what it is supposed to show. And the entire text for all of >> that is "Try this:". >> >> Seriously: if you want people to pay attention to you, you should try to >> provide a minimum of information and explanation. Just dumping some >> code is not going to bring your point across all by itself. >> > The start of the thread *Suggestion: spacing for swing music? > *from 2013/7/13 was the question for* > **spacing to show the correct timing and notation of swing music*. > > If you think my code does not relate to this topic and is eventually > useless, please simply trash it and the other responses! It "relates" to this topic, but it is utterly unclear how it is supposed to relate to the topic. If you think that people will now gather up the complete thread manually and then try to guess what your latest posting is supposed to show in the context of what that has ever been posted to this thread in the last four days, I am pretty sure you will be disappointed. > I am sure you have administration rights. I think you are mistaking an archived mailing list with a tightly controlled and moderated web forum. The content of the mailing list is exclusively the responsibility of the mailing list participants. Spam will get removed, and the list owners might get asked to remove clearly illegal content. But that's it. Nobody is going to remove mails that don't make sense on their own, and quite surely nobody is going to invest the work reconstructing something that makes sense from isolated mails. People read mailing list articles interspersed with their normal mail. Every article needs to make sense on its own, if necessary, by quoting _exactly_ those contexts from previous discussions (and nothing else) that is needed for making a single article make sense on its own. You think I am attacking you and am out to remove your mails. Instead I am telling you what you need to do in order to make _anybody_ actually bother about your mails. I am not making the decisions for people what they want to read and analyze and what not. I am merely telling you that it's unlikely people will bother if you make it unnecessarily hard for them to help you or consider your interests. A mail on this list is written once, and likely read several hundred of times. It makes good sense for that reason that the writer tries his best of not causing _unnecessary_ work for the reader. Now your goal appears to have some specific functionality available. You don't exactly quote what, you write a lot of wrong statements about what LilyPond can or can not do, and then you post some example for which it is totally unclear what it is supposed to demonstrate. Our bug squad, a team of volunteers processing the bug list regularly, will not be able to write a coherent feature request from that. They are not core programmers of LilyPond, and they only have a few minutes to invest per mail. A core programmer investing an hour of sleuth work on the whole mailing list thread may figure out some idea of what you are talking about. I'm not going to invest that time myself, but of course I will not keep others from doing so. But I think that the person best qualified to make sense of your mails by far is yourself. If you are not willing to do it, why should others? -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
