Re: Fix temporary polyphony "for good" (was 'Re: Ties in complex polyphony')

[Kieren MacMillan]

> So what?  That's more of a reason to get rid of the idiosyncrasies
> rather than providing incomplete commands with strange semantics
> that people then start relying on.

Which is exactly why I posted my question in the first place: trying to promote 
the elimination of [one of] Lilypond's idiosyncracies.

In any case, there are too many idiosyncracies for the small development team 
to take care of "immediately". Hence we are forced to use (and "start relying 
on") many, many, many, many — is my point clear yet? — many, many "incomplete 
commands with strange semantics" in order to get our work done.

At least some of us use Lilypond very heavily on a daily basis. For example, 
this week alone I: finished composing and engraving a 12-minute song cycle for 
piano, cello, and voice; updated scores of three different (all relatively 
complex) multi-act music dramas; and prepared score files for five movements 
which will include very large forces (double orchestra plus three smaller 
ensembles plus two choirs) to be filled in with new compositions/arrangements 
over the next few weeks.

Waiting around for proper implementations of things like temporary polyphony is 
not a real option if I want to get my work done in a timely fashion.

Best regards,
Kieren.