Hi Stefano, > I am undecided on what the best interface for it would be though, since as > Urs already mentioned there are trade-offs with each possibility. I too think > that a discussion should be had about that, to see what use-cases and needs > arise. How do you usually do that here? Do you make a new thread asking users > for feedback?
I personally think we could just keep chatting here…? Other than Jan-Peter, I may be the person who has used the EE the most often for the most scores (well over 50 by now). Here are a couple of thoughts, based on my experiences: 1. Use of \editionModList and other convenience "compressors" can, in many cases, make for maintenance difficulties. I often find myself scanning back and forth through my (sometimes quite large!) edition file to try to see why a certain grob is behaving a certain way, only to discover a "hidden" mod in some \editionModList. Putting all the compressed mods together [at the top of the edition file] helps to some degree, but it's not a silver bullet. 2. Single mods are definitely easier to "find and replace" on than compressed mods. 3. The most redundant stuff is the "wrapper" stuff (\editionMod edition-ref context-ref), so a simplified way of 4. Things would be way easier if the EE (and/or Frescobaldi) had a method to highlight (colour-ing the grobs?) all mods, and a linking method to navigate to the correct spot in the edition file. There was an example of this [colouring part] some time ago, but I don't know if it was "taken to the goal line"; it's worth looking at. In terms of use cases, I can pull a bunch of concrete ones from my current engravings, if that would be helpful. Let me know! Best, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: [email protected] _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
