Hi Jean (et al.), > Personally, I find it striking that the *only* two LilyPond > libraries I am hearing about regularly on mailing lists, > edition-engraver and arranger.ly, are both about > inserting / replacing music in a score at a certain > point in time, although with different purposes > (tweaking vs. arranging) and with different authors, > implementations and users.
Also, to a great extent, \after, which has consumed a larger-than-usual amount of mailing list electrons of late… ;) > To me, that means it would be good to integrate generic tools > inspired by them into LilyPond proper. Yes. The main reason I don't compose “into Lilypond” is the irritation with implementing formal changes, which really comes down to the sequential nature of the note code — the ability to “natively” [and, dare we hope, really easily/simply?] insert/replace musical elements at “arbitrary” moments would be a game-changer. > Admittedly, this syntax has more potential benefit in > the future for these external tools or tools in LilyPond > inspired from them than it has benefit for current > standard use of LilyPond. I disagree: check the archives for all the talk about skips and global variables and the like, and you'll see that this is a fundamental pain point for just about every user who moves beyond the very simplest of scores. Cheers, Kieren.
