Hello folks,
Some remarks for what they're worth...
JM
--
LP is basically staff oriented, and we specify a linear sequence of notes and
the like for each staff.
The reactions on the « Do we really offer the future? » thread as well as many
questions that arose recently on this list show a need for a higher-level way
of dealing with scores, that could allow in particular for:
- better repeat/alternative handling;
- handling bars globally in a cross-staff way;
- vertical staff and system spacing issues;
- better handling of end of lines, in particular regarding bar/repeat
signs and marks.
This would mean building a representation of the « architecture » of the score
as internal data by the tool. It’s my understanding that that’s what Denemo is
doing.
Or maybe the user should start from the global architecture of the score
(number of systems, staves and bars, where the repeats/alternatives occur and
for how many times, where vertical spacing should be augmented, …) and then «
populate » the resulting « canevas ». This is analogous to the relational
database world, in which you first specify the structure and then supply the
contents.
I don’t think a much faster version of LP, thru parallelism say, will exist
soon. The approach I’m thinking of could help have a number of instances of LP
produce the view for individual staves in parallel while the user is
interactively populating them.
Wether LP can evolve toward this need or some other tool using it behind the
scenes is a better approach would have to be seen, of course.
HTH!
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
