Re: partcombine and quote don't play well together

[David Kastrup]

Kieren MacMillan <address@hidden> writes:

> 3. I have always been, and continue to be, happy to sponsor
> infrastructure improvements. That being said: (a) I am in no financial
> position to offer a monthly amount of any significance; and (b) nobody
> has ever asked me to sponsor infrastructure *other* than "please
> consider a monthly donation".

The monetary situation is a red herring: indeed by far most of the work
on LilyPond goes unpaid.

What I don't see making any sense is when you write:

> Coincidentally, I've long wanted to help spearhead and sponsor a
> "Grand Unified Partcombine Project".
> (Searching on the list, it seems like 2009 was my first "official"
> call for such a thing.)

[...]

> 2. Am I the only one who wants a killer part-combining framework? Is
> nobody else using it as much as I am (even in its highly-limited
> current state)?
> 
> 3. Are there any programmers out there willing to work with me towards
> a really great partcombiner?

This is just quite at odds with the last contribution you made to
LilyPond's code being a (comparatively minor) documentation change in
2010 and you completely being out of the loop with regard to
partcombiner developments that actually did happen over the years.

It's in the nature of Free Software that there are more takers than
givers: the principal point is to multiply the available resources by
allowing the free copying and reuse of them.

Which is fine.  Nevertheless I am really at a loss of what "working with
you towards a really great partcombiner" is supposed to mean.  What is
the kind of work you are envisioning for yourself here?  And when did
you plan to start on it?

-- 
David Kastrup