On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 06:21:56PM +0100, Eyolf ?strem wrote: > On 22.12.2008 (17:37), John Mandereau wrote: > > Why not? I'm sure a not so small amount of users would like to program > > with LilyPond, so revising and extending the Scheme tutorial is a > > solution IMHO.
It was on the cards for GDP, but was dropped quite early on due to insufficient resources. IIRC at least three people "really wanted" to rewrite the Scheme chapter, but I had to tell them all to focus on NR 1+2. > 1. Make no mistake about it: using LilyPond IS to be a programmer, to a > greater or lesser extent. And even though the plain an simple sheets with a > melody line and a title "just" calls for a scripting language programmer, Not only that, but simply thinking about music expressions requires a certain amount of programmer-like thought. I still see newbies posting here when their misunderstanding traces back to not understanding music expressions... but hopefully that will lessen once 2.12 is out and people read the updated tutorial. > 2. Minimize the visibility of scheme (and the direct envolvement with LP's > context properties etc.) by developing a more complete macro layer between > the user and the backend, the way LaTeX sits between TeX and the user. Stuff along those lines are planned for GOP... but just like the extent of doc work in GDP, it all depends on the amount of time and effort that users are prepared to give. Cheers, - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
