Hi, On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Kieren MacMillan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Neo, > >> I was afraid that without any instructions the code in that thread would >> fail, >> but to my surprise it worked beautifully! Thank you! > > You're welcome. From what I understand, the code has some issues, but it > seemed like it would solve your use case. > >> I wonder why this isn't coded into LP itself or provided as a snippet >> with the software or in some repository (or am I mistaken?) > > As far as I know, you're not mistaken: it's not in the codebase, nor provided > as a snippet. I would imagine the limitations (see the email thread) are a > sufficient obstacle to the functionality being considered for the main > codebase…
I'm sure there is a bug somewhere, but the problem reported in the thread was solved later in the thread :) and even if not, the path to getting a patch created, submitted, reviewed, and accepted can be long and steep, and perhaps David N has higher-priority ways he is applying his Lilypond-based time at the moment. > > I believe there is general agreement that all spanners should support ids, > but there are evidently technical hurdles to making this happen. > My goal for the semester break is to get my measure-attached spanner patch submitted. I've been sitting on it for far too long. With the simultaneous spanners I'm not sure how I ought to proceed. I thought there was some GSoC work on spanner-ids, so I hesitate to work this into the C++ code (as Thomas Morley proposed) and interfere somehow or contribute something with very limited shelf life. Really, I don't know. Does anyone know more about this subject? David _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
