On 11/2/16 12:25 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Knut Petersen" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
>Am 26.09.2016 um 13:14 schrieb Knut Petersen: >> Therefore I propose that LyricHyphen grobs should implement their own >>whiteout routine. That would >> give the desired result with a minimum of effort (see 3rd and 4th >>attachment). > >Nobody interested? Sorry. I looked at this in September and wasn't thrilled with it, because it makes LyricHyphen a special grob that contains its own whiteout routine. I see the reasoning for doing so, but I'd like to avoid making such a special case. I spent a bit of time thinking about better ways to do it, and couldn't come up with any. So overall, I'm conflicted. I see the need. I don't like putting in the special case. I don't have a better way to do it. I wish it could be done in Scheme, because then I could just tell you to put the snippet in the LSR and keep it out of the core code. But that obviously won't work. So I don't know whether to say "include the code because we need the functionality" or "keep it out, because we don't want to break consistency". If we could figure out a way to do make all grobs responsible for their whiteouts, where most of them just passed on to the generic whiteout function, I think that would be better. Thanks, Carl _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
