Of course, I understand your reasoning and point of view well. I have used Finale for 10 years, Sibelius for 5 years and Dorico for another two years. In this experience, I have always struggled to be able to "bend" the software to my needs. Sometimes a very extreme bending, so much so that it often leads to distorting some functions in order to obtain something very simple. Then I arrived on Lilypond and I discover that the tweaks certainly work at a deeper level, so much so that it is possible to obtain very elaborate results (I am thinking of notations for contemporary music for example). And all this, with an extensible and completely free programming language. So, forgive my perhaps excessive enthusiasm, but I see so much potential in Lilypond that I am satisfied with it. I will see the limits and, theoretically, as my syntactic knowledge of Scheme increases, I will look for a way around them.
Thanks again for everything Rip_mus Il lun 14 feb 2022, 16:26 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> ha scritto: > Rip _Mus <ripetizioni.mus...@gmail.com> writes: > > > Good morning, > > thank you, thank you very much! > > The level of customization of lilypond seems incredible to me: I will > have > > to deepen a lot, especially as regards the definition of new > > engravers. > > Not all of it really deserves the name "customization" but rather is > more or less a consequence of the proverbial hood not being welded shut. > Being able to touch everything does not imply that there are > driver-level controls for everything, so getting competent help for some > task here does not imply that LilyPond is well-prepared to do this task. > > Though it can be the first step of getting it there. > > -- > David Kastrup >
