> So what? That's more of a reason to get rid of the idiosyncrasies > rather than providing incomplete commands with strange semantics > that people then start relying on.
Which is exactly why I posted my question in the first place: trying to promote the elimination of [one of] Lilypond's idiosyncracies. In any case, there are too many idiosyncracies for the small development team to take care of "immediately". Hence we are forced to use (and "start relying on") many, many, many, many — is my point clear yet? — many, many "incomplete commands with strange semantics" in order to get our work done. At least some of us use Lilypond very heavily on a daily basis. For example, this week alone I: finished composing and engraving a 12-minute song cycle for piano, cello, and voice; updated scores of three different (all relatively complex) multi-act music dramas; and prepared score files for five movements which will include very large forces (double orchestra plus three smaller ensembles plus two choirs) to be filled in with new compositions/arrangements over the next few weeks. Waiting around for proper implementations of things like temporary polyphony is not a real option if I want to get my work done in a timely fashion. Best regards, Kieren. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
