Peter Mogensen wrote:
You're right. But the I was trying to make is that if something requires desing-considerations for a clean solution, then it can be difficult to find "small useful solutions", which together gets you all the way. I'm not in a position to evaluate whether this is the case, since I've not read the source. I just wanted to make it possible to "do it right", if you conclude that the cleanest way to move forward would be changing some fundamental design. (even if the feature which caused that conclussion was minor). ... and for people to sponsor such activity together.
Well, generally, I only change fundamental designs, if it solves a fundamental problem, and I'm not convinced that this is one. Changing a design usually also introduces a lot of new problems.
-- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
