[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [frogs] Frog's Lament

From: Marc Hohl
Subject: Re: [frogs] Frog's Lament
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:05:49 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090817)

Carl Sorensen schrieb:

On 11/26/09 2:56 AM, "Marc Hohl" <address@hidden> wrote:


Two things come to mind here:

1) When any of us asks a question on the list and gets an answer, we ought
to add it to the CG.  We can either do it by writing a patch, or by writing
some text that will get added to the CG.

I volunteer to add text to the CG as part of my Frogmeister
responsibilities, but I don't have the time to follow all the questions and
answers and turn them into stuff that will be added to the CG.
Perhaps we should collect the bits and pieces on a different place first
(perhaps the frog page). Collecting Information will take a lot of time,
and then, this information has to be reworked properly, and *then* it
is ready to find its way to the CG.

If you need help to get all the informations bundled together, I can offer
myself to help improving the documentation.

I'm confused by this description that "the simplest tasks require c++
coding."  Can you give me an example of such simplest tasks?
Ok, this depends on the definition of "simple". I started to work on tablature bends, but I am stuck, because the graphical output seems to be quite promising, whereas the usability and the syntax etc. isn't. There are only few comments on my work, so I cannot decide in which way I should move on, but it seems to me that I have to implement
a new engraver.

Besides, I tried to work on bug #40, because I stumbled on the limitations of the glissando spanner while improving it for tablature. Glissandos (Glissandi?) are often played by electric guitar players, so I see this as part of the tablature improvement, even if it primarily concerns normal staves. But here I have to take into account the accidentals and some fingerings, and long email exchanges with Neil led to the conclusion that
the best way to handle this is writing c code.

Perhaps the tasks looked simple and aren't, in fact. But I can't go on doing anything
concerning functionality at the moment without c++.
To me, the best way to resolve this problem is to get the knowledge out of
the gurus heads' and into the documentation.  But that is not likely to
happen by the gurus writing the documentation.  Instead, we less-experienced
developers need to document things as we learn them.
Is it fair that beginners need to document in addition to writing code?
Probably not.  But we beginners need to improve our understanding, and one
of the best ways to improve understanding is to explain it to others.  And
that will help us in our desires to contribute.
In my opinion, even beginners should have to write well-documented code.

I followed the thread about the indentation issues of Ian's patch closely, and it took a lot of changes (IIRC, Neil corrected the last parts himself before applying it) to get the code properly formatted. A suitable documentation will probably not
consume such a big amount of time. One can show potential developers some
parts of well-documented code for clarification and let them rework their patch
one or two times, and that's it (or at least, ideally).

And, moreover, it seems to be the fact that even developers closer to the core write patches they cannot explain some months later. This should never happen. It is a horrendous waste of time and energy if I have to find out what I did some months ago, when spending
20 minutes more for describing the code in a suitable way would do the job.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]