On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:15 PM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote:
> Graham Percival <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> At the Waltrop meeting, Janek proposed a number of interesting but
>> potentially disruptive changes to the lilypond syntax. On a
>> personal note, I really like most of them, but it will take a good
>> chunk of work before they're ready to discuss on the main
>> development list.
>>
>> Further complicating issues is that it quickly became apparent
>> that I am not personally qualified to judge if a proposal is ready
>> for main discussion.
>
> Wouldn't the purpose of a discussion be to present and discuss
> advantages and drawbacks? The question of _discussing_ a change is in
> my opinion quite different from _implementing_ a change.
I suppose Graham meant that proposals presented for main discussion
should be well-shaped and free of big and/or obvious problems. I
think his point is that the purpose of main discussion is to take a
well-shaped proposal, consider its advantages and drawbacks and make a
decision.
> With regard to providing a simpler interface to humans and computers,
> the proposals were somewhat conflicting in their direction, so it would
> make sense to discuss them separately where this happens to be the case.
I agree, they should be discussed somewhat separately ("somewhat"
meaning that we keep in mind that some potentially useful proposals
depend on other proposals).
cheers,
Janek
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
