[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Whiteout / LyricHyphen

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: Whiteout / LyricHyphen
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 20:36:46 +0000
User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/

On 11/2/16 12:25 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Knut Petersen"
<address@hidden on behalf of
address@hidden> wrote:

>Am 26.09.2016 um 13:14 schrieb Knut Petersen:
>> Therefore I propose that LyricHyphen grobs should implement their own
>>whiteout routine. That would
>> give the desired result with a minimum of effort (see 3rd and 4th
>Nobody interested?

Sorry.  I looked at this in September and wasn't thrilled with it, because
it makes LyricHyphen a special grob that contains its own whiteout routine.

I see the reasoning for doing so, but I'd like to avoid making such a
special case.

I spent a bit of time thinking about better ways to do it, and couldn't
come up with any.

So overall, I'm conflicted.  I see the need.  I don't like putting in the
special case.  I don't have a better way to do it.

I wish it could be done in Scheme, because then I could just tell you to
put the snippet in the LSR and keep it out of the core code.  But that
obviously won't work.

So I don't know whether to say "include the code because we need the
functionality" or "keep it out, because we don't want to break

If we could figure out a way to do make all grobs responsible for their
whiteouts, where most of them just passed on to the generic whiteout
function, I think that would be better.



reply via email to

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