Hi Han-Wen, > Over the years, I've become extremely wary of syntactic sugar: it adds > an extra barrier to usage/development because everyone not only has to > learn Scheme, they also have to learn the (lilypond specific) idioms > involved.
I'm curious you say that, since my experience is precisely the opposite: I've had far better results "selling" Lilypond to people using syntactic sugar than basically anything else I can identify. The people I’ve "converted" all want to be able to type things like \reverseMusic \foo rather than learning how to write the equivalent function in Scheme. In other words, syntactic sugar keeps them from learning Scheme as opposed to having to learn it. Am I missing something? Is my experience unique? Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer (he/him/his) ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: kie...@kierenmacmillan.info
