Re: parallelMusic and repeat

[Alexander Kobel]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Alexander Kobel <address@hidden> writes:
> > > Standardization does not mean "let's call the current inconsistent
> > > ad-hoc behavior standard".  A standard needs to make sense of its
> > > own, not just be a side-effect of a particular implementation.
> > Ah, come on. Of course your reasoning is correct, I know. [...]
> > And there's a bunch of great features, as well, which don't
> > follow a well-defined standard, but are incredibly valuable from a
> > practical point of view.
>
> So where is your point?  Remember: the issue was _standardization_, as
> quoted from your posting above.
>
> > It's one thing to try to refine the latter, but as long as they get me
> > my work done, I surely won't reject them for purely ideological
> > reasons, and rather stick to defaults than standards.
>
> So why are _you_ then talking about "standardization"?

Hum. To my understanding, the point why Eluze and you recommend not to 
use \parallelMusic is the lack of a standard for it - which, IMHO, 
misses the opportunity to ease your work, regardless of the current 
state of implementation and/or defintion of the command.

> > I mean,
> > although it's a hack: What actually /is/ bad about \parallelMusic?
>
> That it breaks in incoherent ways and circumstances that you could not
> guess from looking at its manual page, or from any inherent features
> from the "definition".

And to the rest of your mail, especially this last point: my apologies, 
I think I overdid. Count me as convinced, and I guess our opinions 
regarding what /should/ be actually aren't that different anyway...
I'll make a better use of my time, and try to put together an example of 
why I'm still in favor of it. Although I'm not that sure anymore if it's 
a good idea to push that to the LSR.


Cheers,
Alexander