Re: PATCH: Allow setting of arpeggio type for spanned arpeggios

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 1/23/09 8:31 AM, "Chris Snyder" <address@hidden> wrote:

> (a caveat to the following message: I'm still learning how the LilyPond
> code is organized - please gently correct me when necessary)
> 
> Joe Neeman wrote:
> 
>> I think Han-Wen's approach is the "real" solution, but it's also a bit
>> more work. You could create a new SpanArpeggio grob that gets Arpeggios
>> as children and has, as default properties, callbacks that check the
>> children. You need to decide what happens, though (this is also an
>> admittedly pretty negligible problem with Chris's original patch) if two
>> "child" arpeggios have different stencils: what happens to the span
>> arpeggio?
> 
> I agree that Han-Wen's approach is better from an architectural
> standpoint. I'd be willing to undertake such an endeavor if everyone
> agrees that it would be desirable, as long as no-one minds the
> occasional possibly-inane question on -devel. I think the problem you
> mention with both approaches (which I did recognize when I was making
> the patch) is a non-issue - LilyPond should not be expected to produce
> sensible output from non-sensible input, such as a spanned arpeggio
> comprised of arpeggios of different styles. I think that throwing up a
> warning would be the most desirable outcome.

I suspect you mean throwing up a warning and choosing one of the styles to
use anyway, so the program can continue.

> 

Sounds to me like we have a winner.  Chris, will you take on this task?  I
think you'll find that the people on -devel are happy to answer coding
questions.  Everybody wants more people who can fix/modify LilyPond code, so
we're all happy to help somebody get up to speed.

Thanks,

Carl