Re: Substitute for s1*0

[Graham Percival]

On Mon, May 07, 2012 at 08:54:49PM +0100, James wrote:
> On 7 May 2012 20:32, Nicolas Sceaux <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > Now that this is settled,
> 
> Oh that's ok then. I'll get my coat.

Yep.

> > I don't understand why David's proposition, which is both cheap and neat,
> > faced such opposition.  I, for one, will be using the new <> idiom.
> 
> With all due respect it faces opposition by someone who doesn't code,
> doesn't know what a 'parser' is or looks like, doesn't know what an
> alist is, doesn't know the difference between a grob and engraver a
> textscript or markup, doesn't know ... etc. The more alien you make
> the syntax the more it puts people off.

Agreed.


*shrug / sigh*

Look, we've lost this argument -- and yes, I use the term "lost"
and "argument" advisedly.  I am *not* happy with how nasty this
thread has gotten and the lack of respect we appear to have for
each other's viewpoints.  I'm going to delete all remaining emails
about this matter without reading them, because I have better
things to do than to have my concerns belittled.

I'll have to be even more cautious when running GLISS than I was
initially planning.  I'm not at all looking forward to it... and
frankly, my motivation to do *anything* for lilypond is
approaching an all-time low.  Good thing I'm going on vacation
tomorrow.

- Graham