Hi Graham,
Don't split it up.
I partially agree.
And you don't need explanations.
I disagree!
1. If these are meant in any way to be instructive (like most, if not
all, of the LSR!), then there *must* be internal documentation.
2. If these are meant to be combined, then they need documentation,
and they should be as modular as possible (e.g., I want to use the
Barenreiter page formatting, Nicolas's titling, and Kieren's fancy
floating-time-signature hack).
At laest, not for what I'm thinking.
What *are* you thinking? ;-)
Do normal LaTeX users ever look at the details of packages?
I do... but then again, I'm not "normal".
Do normal C++ programmers ever look at the source code of the
libraries they use? Ok, in occasional circumstances yes, but
generally not.
All programmers *should* look more at the packages/libraries they
use... especially in C++, which is one of the cruftiest languages
I've ever seen.
but don't delay this project
That I agree with, 100%.
Cheers,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
