[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > I just fixed a bug in the lyrics-phrasing-engraver, and was fixing
> > up some documentation on it, when I noticed that there is actually
> > no documentation on the lyrics phrasing stuff. One example that I
> > noted, is that melismata are extended across rests unless the
> > lyrics-phrasing-engraver is put to action.
>
> But this is a bug, isn't it?
Only if it's not documented :-)
But seriously. There are so many aspects for which Lily doesn't
produce perfect music notation, that calling that a "bug" would give
the impression that almost every part of lilypond is thoroughly buggy,
and will be for next 5 or 10 years. IMO this is not justified.
That's why have a distinction between:
1. Bug: the program doesn't work as advertised (documented). Fixing
this involves some (usually small) mods to the existing code.
2. Shortcoming: the program doesn't do something according to
notation rules, but we never claimed it would. Fixing this
involves (re)writing complete chunks of code, and is much more
difficult than 1.
I think that the beam code is almost bugfree in your sense of the
word. I can't think of any other part of the formatting engine that
matches your definition of bugfree.
Unfortunately, keeping/making lily bugfree in the sense of 1. is
already taking a lot of effort. If you want 2., then you will have to
have a lot of patience, or we need serious increase in knowledgeable
hackers/free time to hack.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cs.uu.nl/~hanwen
_______________________________________________
Lilypond-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
