Hello.
[Changing subject line; so many different topics in a single
thread...]
On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:14:15 -0400, Kieren MacMillan wrote:
Hi Gilles (et al.),
Best practices, yes; for any score (not just large ones).[1]
A flexible structure that would be "compelling" and foster the
creation of "compliant" tools.
I have a pretty rich imagination, and I can’t begin to conceive of a
Lilypond best practice [singular] or flexible structure [singular]
that could possibly satisfy both a newbie who wants to quickly output
a 32-bar lead sheet with chord symbols and a power user who wants to
manage a crowd-engraved critical edition of “Porgy & Bess”.
Yet you long for <some_tool> that would know how to remove a set of
bars from "That Production" project. :-P
A tool could do that *if* it knew what structure to expect. [Like
if each note would be in a database table where one of the attributes
is the bar number...]
The various GUI applications do just that: they decide on a structure
so that they can represent it graphically.
By default, standardization is a Good Thing.
It should not be the case that simple scores have a structure that
becomes hugely inadequate when more contents is added.
As I mentioned already, several "project managers" were referred to
here along the years. But they had always the same fundamental
problem as was raised in a recent post: they were designed outside
official development. Hence, however powerful, they never became
"standard".
Best regards,
Gilles
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
