Re: First release of ly/tablature.ly

[Carl D. Sorensen]

On 7/7/09 1:56 AM, "Marc Hohl" <address@hidden> wrote:

> Joe Neeman schrieb:
>> On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:53 -0600, Carl D. Sorensen wrote:
>>  
>>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/67174/diff/1/2#newcode237
>>>> Line 237: \layout {
>>>> It seems to me that we have 3 versions of tablature now: the "default"
>>>> version in engraver-init.ly, the version that appears if the user
>>>> includes "tablature.ly" and the "full" version that the user gets by
>>>> including tablature.ly and using the tabFullNotation. Is there a reason
>>>> for keeping the old versions in engraver-init.ly? Perhaps we should
>>>> scrap them altogether and require that the user include tablature.ly in
>>>> order to get tabs.
>>>>      
>>> The current structure comes because I suggested we keep the default the
>>> same, so that we wouldn't break all of the existing tablatures.  But Marc
>>> wanted to have TabNumbersOnly be the default (and that's why it's
>>> implemented that way in tablature.ly).
>>> 
>>> The tabFullNotation is probably almost the same as that in engraver-init.ly.
>>> 
>>> If we don't mind breaking previously existing scores, then we can go ahead
>>> and change the initialization to numbers only.
>>>    
>> 
>> I don't particularly mind breaking existing scores (as long as there is
>> a convert-ly rule to at least warn about the problem), but I don't think
>> the situation in the patch is particularly friendly. We've a long
>> tradition of choosing sensible behaviour over backwards compatibility
>> and I see no reason to change it now.
>>  
> Joe,
> 
> I am not sure whether I understand your comment correctly.
> What should I change to make the patch more "friendly"?

Marc,

I think that Joe means go ahead and break old scores -- do the best thing
for going forward, so make TabNumbersOnly the default behavior (like you
wanted to), and have TabFullNotation be the override.  That is, ignore my
initial suggestion to keep TabFullNotation as the default behavior.

I believe that will make things much more simple in the code if you do that.

Thanks,

Carl