Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanw...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>> Well, one simple consequence would be that one can't define music >>> functions in a document (their definition is interpretation, their use >>> is parsing). The use of Scheme would be quite constrained, as reading >>> it is parsing, evaluating it interpretation. >> >> Ouch. Sound like something we seriously don't want at all. > > Right - this means that we seriously don't want to be a music > interchange/storage format.
Not if we are talking about a _transparent_ format (readable by more than humans and LilyPond itself). If we could let LilyPond deal with MusicXML for both input and output (which would both be basically "untweaked"), we'd cover quite a bit of application area. I am not convinced that LilyPond source is not a desirable format as well, but for something like Mutopia, we'd need to employ human crowdsourcing to keep the archive from bitrot. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
