On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:53 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > To get back at the hammer analogy, users might ask for a > heavier hammer if they have problems getting screws in place. Or for a > more convenient way to enter/express xxx when they should not be > required to bother with xxx at all.
Yes, that's a problem. Anyway, i think that we agree that we'll have to sort user responses and that not all of them will actually need language changes to solve. >> Do i understand correctly that you mean "it's good to have helper >> functions [1] that make code clean and tidy. It is also good to be >> able to look at the code of such function and create your own >> derivative function if necessary"? >> >> If so, that's like +111 from me - couldn't agree more. >> >> [1] or other helper stuff, even if technically it's not a function > > I would not call "an interface to a musical concept" a "helper function" > just because it is reasonably easy to translate that concept into a > graphical representation. I don't understand what you mean here...[1] Anyway, i should've provided an example. By "helper stuff" i mean things like your \at function, David Nalesnik's \shape, being able to write \compressFullBarRests instead of \set SkipBars = ##t etc. best, Janek [1] you don't have to explain (unless you care about it a lot) - i know that we can talk for hours ;) and there's so much other emails flying around that it's hard to keep up: i haven't done anything other than email since i've woken up, except for breakfast :P I'm trying to get my replies shorter... _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
