Urs Liska <u...@openlilylib.org> writes: > Am 11.04.2014 00:51, schrieb David Kastrup: > >> I want to be able to draw up some score of mine in ten years and >> print new versions of it using the version of LilyPond I'll be using >> then. I've done a mediocre job of ensuring that regarding the >> stability of LilyPond's syntax, but a pretty good job regarding >> convert-ly to mop after any changes. >> >> That's what's important to me. At the current point of time, this >> may well imply scores below publishing quality. But it is a rare >> case when they are not playable. > > OK, that's what _you_ see in LilyPond, for your purposes. That's > completely valid, and it's even more valid to spend your worktime for > that goal. > But if you take that perspective seriously you actually say that > LilyPond will and should only be really useful for professional work > in some distant future when we might have managed to make it "Do the > right thing" automatically.
No, I am saying that LilyPond _is_ only useful for some professional work under some standards with lots of manual work defeating its design goals. > But LilyPond can already be used for professional publication work > today - although that requires manual tweaks. A scythe may well be by far the best thing I have in the house for the purpose of cutting bread, just because it has a sharp edge. It's still not a bread knife. Asking a smith to serrate its edge for better cutting will buy you raised eyebrows. > What you are saying is what I've been lobbying everywhere too > recently: That you can create usable performance material with no (or > neglectable) manual post-processing, and that you can do the whole > process of (scholarly) editing of a score without bothering with > engraving details until the last moment before publication. But that > doesn't reduce the necessity to create publication quality scores too, > and that can't wait until the 12th of never. LilyPond does not change through the amount of doomsaying. It changes by work done on it. >> It's a strawman anyway. That I can only manage a finite workload is >> not a matter of ideology. > > Hm. There are two things to that: first: We're not talking of _your_ > workload concretely. So who is going to rearchitecture LilyPond for partial compilations? You can convince yourself of anything, but somebody is going to have to do that work. And I consider it a mistake to organize your dreams and expectations and lobbying around the assumption that it can and will be done. You are developing a plan and strategies, and they need a few things to fall into place at a future point of time. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
