2013/10/18 David Nalesnik <[email protected]>: > Looks great! One omission: you've touched on everything here except the > shorthand you use throughout the attachments--namely using (x y) for (x . y)
Indeed! Using 2-element lists is so much more convenient to me that i've already almost forgotten that one could add a dot there :) 2013/10/18 Paul Morris <[email protected]>: > Janek Warchoł wrote >> I'd like to hear your opinions. Do you like it? Should it be added >> to official LilyPond distribution? > > Looks good to me! Nice work. I'd say yes and yes. > > What other "modes of specifying control-points position" do you have in > mind? Quite a few: - specifying absolute control-point coordinates, as if one was overriding control-points directly (could be useful for using on just one of the points, while others would be specified with different "modes"), - (for inner points) specifying offsets relative to outer points, - relative polar coordinates (i.e. "move the 2nd point 10 degrees outwards"), - polar coordinates relative to the line connecting outer points (instead of horizontal line) - my experiences say that this could be even better than current \polar. As it would make no sense to have 6 different functions using different modes, i would merge them together so that one could specify which mode to use for each control-point. best, Janek _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
