> I'm ambivalent. The danger is that the number of functions to create > and manipulate data structures explodes, and becomes harder to > learn. We have to find a balance between having a small "interface" > and an interface that is ultra-ergonomic to use.
I think at the moment that Lilypond is a bit low-level, as I hinted before. What is needed is essentially the raw materials for making a style sheet. I found the settings in Sibelius under "House style" helpful for this: there are a lot of them, but they are all obvious, and most of the time, the setting exists for the thing you want to do. Hence, it is not too difficult to look in the index of the manual (or just scan down the menus in the GUI) to find what you want. The options are all very specific and simple (e.g. what font for expression markings? should rehearsal figures be numbers or letters? how often to put bar numbers?). Of course, you can still build particular stylesheets (like in LaTeX), but it is so much nicer if you don't have to start with raw LilyPond. (Rather like the memoir class in LaTeX, if anyone knows that: it is essentially a customisable document class that lets you do a wide range of things for "sensible" documents, without needing an understanding of how to program LaTeX macros). -- http://www.mupsych.org/~rrt/ | Eschatology Generally Breeds Dire Fanaticism _______________________________________________ Lilypond-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
