Keith OHara wrote Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:14 AM
> Trevor Daniels <t.daniels <at> treda.co.uk> writes: > >> The description of \defineBarLine in NR 1.2.5 does >> not make it clear that the parameter called bartype >> doubles as both the name of the barline being defined >> and the definition of the bar line to be used in >> the middle of the line (i.e. not at the beginning or >> the end.) > >> Why not "\defineBarLine normal end start span"? > > I agree that the simple list of four arguments would be better. > > I traced the history to find the discussion at the point where the > grouping was introduced: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2012-09/msg01031.html Hm, there was very little discussion of this point in a very long thread. Only David expressed an opinion AFAICS. I think I must have stopped following it at the time due to the length of the thread. I came across this when trying to document \inStaffSegno better, and had to use the new \defineBarLine documentation in the NR. I couldn't understand it without referring to the Scheme implementation which used a simple list of four arguments and was perfectly clear. So either the user interface or the documentation (or probably both) should be improved. > I think there might be consensus to reverse that decision. > (I would raise a tracker issue, but maybe better to give it a day > on the mailing list in case there is other input.) OK. No one else has chimed in yet. Maybe no one else has tried to understand \defineBarLine from scratch :) Trevor _______________________________________________ bug-lilypond mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
