Am Donnerstag, den 09.01.2014, 10:13 -0500 schrieb Carl Peterson: > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 6:20 AM, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Another problem is that LilyPond has a usage philosophy and workflow > > that strongly penalizes manual tweaks. Graphically/manually oriented > > workflows detract from the importance of getting good default > > typesetting. > > I don't know that I agree with this, entirely. I use MuseScore, > Scorio, and Finale Notepad (depending on where I am and how I feel) > for compositional work because they provide ease of note entry in the > composing process and the ability to have instant aural feedback on > what I've written (particularly if I'm not at my keyboard to play what > I've written). Once I have the draft of the music written, I will > manually retype the music into my LilyPond template because of the > "good default typesetting" it provides. Now, consider an IDE/GUI setup > (perhaps an extension of Frescobaldi) that would allow me to define a > variable for a voice, then pop up a musical staff to enter and play > back the notes for that variable without dealing with the whole > compilation process. No manual tweaking of notes, just the entry of > the entry and playback of the notes, and I don't have to insert the > notes into the music itself yet or deal with whatever may or may not > be wrong with the rest of my file. I realize that this would not > necessarily work for all use cases, but I think for a large number of > them, this could be beneficial. It would reduce a number of my > transcription errors without me having to compile, scan for errors, > potentially figure out where the errors are (depending on workflow), > correct, recompile, etc. > > Carl
https://github.com/wbsoft/frescobaldi/issues/345 _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
