On 2/7/07, Bryan Stanbridge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
David Rogers wrote:
> The correct answer is (I believe) exactly as you proposed earlier. Talking
about Lilypond's internal logic is IMHO counterproductive. In fact, internally, I
suspect Lilypond should stay the same - it just needs to allow the user to use it
effectively by making (or even just *allowing*) the logical separation between
paper, headers, and music, which you already outlined.
It would be great if we could also leave the current mechanism in place
if we do such a change. The system made sense to me from the beginning
and I'd prefer to think in terms of scope (I have a strong programming
background). I don't oppose a division on its merits, but it would be
nice if the format would stay the same.
Right. The scoping mechanism is actually fantastic. So what do you
think about the collapsing of \paper and \layout into \settings which
is then a *pure* representation of the scope at which the variable
sets?
[Side question: had you realized that there were actually *three*
levels of scope (at least in input files) rather than two? I certainly
didn't. But I never use \book explicitly ...]
--
Trevor Bača
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
