Hi, Bruce:
Users dealing with LilyPond as it evolves are presented with
difficult choices, none good.
Well, "none good" might be a bit harsh... ;-)
But your point is well taken.
If you can identify a better way, or have other comments, please
respond.
Always keep your note code (i.e., content) separate from your score
and tweak code (i.e., presentation) -- basic note code syntax has
been (IMO) fairly stable over the last several versions, with the
chord/simultaneous-music swap (i.e., <> swapped with <<>>) being the
last major one I can remember.
I have experienced acceptably smooth migrations since about v2.1;
when things got rough(er) it was almost always because I hadn't
abstracted my code sufficiently.
That being said, it's not exactly super-easy to write good, well-
abstracted Lilypond code -- it takes patience and planning.
What would be amazing (though, I think, impossible) would be the
ability to apply tweaks, etc., without requiring all the skips to
"locate" ("anchor") them.
Don't know if any of that helps, but it's a good thread, and I wanted
to put in my $0.02 (Canadian).
Cheers,
Kieren.
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
