Peter X <peterandu...@gmail.com> writes: > *Subject*: Feature Request: Supporting Numbered Notation (Nashville Number > System) in LilyPond > > > Dear LilyPond Development Team, > > > I hope this message finds you well. I would like to propose a new > feature for LilyPond: support for *numbered notation (*Nashville > Number System*)*. Over the years, numbered notation has been a tool > of great utility for specific musical contexts, yet it has often been > overlooked or underappreciated due to its perceived limitations in > polyphonic (harmonic) music. However, I believe that, given its unique > strengths, it deserves reconsideration, especially in the context of > monophonic instruments and melody-driven music education.
I think you misunderstand LilyPond's mode of development. Features are not magically tackled by promoting them but by someone feeling strong enough about them that they are doing the heavy lifting. For small tasks, you can often find people on the mailing lists doing them as kind of finger exercises. Large projects involving user interface design and working out coherent semantics tend to be in a different league. The Nashville Number System was not, as you seem to believe, at one time considered for implementation and then judged unworthy of implementation, as your call for "reconsideration" suggests. We have no central authority making such decisions. LilyPond is flexible enough to support a host of different typesetting tasks, but someone™ has to do the work for any of them. That is not the choice of a central project managing authority but of someone invested enough in a specific task that they will gear up to doing the involved work. -- David Kastrup
