Hi Federico, > I see the first as less cluttered than the second (and another example of > music can appear much more cluttered than above example).
I see the second as containing more information encoded directly in the input, and requiring less to be added by the user. > I don't like trying to "see" the music in the lilypond input. I prefer using > point-and-click. As far as I know, we are still trying to position Lilypond as useable without a GUI, and hence without “point-and-click”. Hence we shouldn’t make decisions on fundamental structure, syntax, and so on based on hypothetical (or sometimes-real) GUI conveniences. > Maybe, you, as a composer, want to see the input in a different way from me. I, as an engraver, want to know immediately what note I’m working with, without having to spend the time (in a non-GUI editor) backtracking and calculating the aggregate octave displacement. Luckily, I guess, there are both options. You are free to use the one you find superior (i.e., relative), and I will continue to use the one I find superior (i.e., absolute). =) Regards, Kieren. ________________________________ Kieren MacMillan, composer ‣ website: www.kierenmacmillan.info ‣ email: i...@kierenmacmillan.info _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
