Got a free moment.. 2013/12/15 Carl Peterson <carlopeter...@gmail.com>: > I think I share in what I get to be the general sense of many of the > comments that have been made thus far. There is a tradeoff between > ease of default use and the customizability. To use a bad and probably > over-generalized analogy, we're going from Linux (where you pretty > much have to do it yourself, but you can make it do pretty much > anything you want) to Mac (where everything is easy IF you are willing > to work within the predefined templates, and anything else is almost > impossible). We need something in between. > > I don't know that this is the route to go. If our goal is to get > people using LP, I don't think that what we need is a function that > hides basic structures from the users, where if they want to go beyond > this, they have to move from two include commands to a whole new > structure. I think what we need is a stripped-down choral/SATB layout > that uses minimal overrides and extra code so that new users can > copy-and-paste and start experimenting with.
I believe we need to add an abstraction layer that would make it conceptually simpler to write \score blocks. Please take a look at https://github.com/openlilylib/snippets/tree/master/templates/predefined-instruments I believe that this is exactly what LilyPond needs to allow beginner users easily create score structures. Notice how much it shortens the \score definition. I don't quite understand why nobody seems interested in this... Janek PS this is not to say that i don't like Trevor's templates! I believe they are a useful addition. _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
