Carl Sorensen wrote:
> For me, I think the "correct musical semantics" argument overrides the
> "don't expand the namespace" argument.
Pardon my ignorance, but is there a legitimate downside to expanding
the namespace? Does it affect performance speed? Eat up memory? Or is
it just that it makes the program look more "clogged" with commands or
something? I'm thinking of the comparison between LISP and Scheme.
They say the entire Scheme standard is smaller than the index of the
LISP standard, so it's more compact. I guess Scheme users might say "I
don't want a whole bunch of features I'm never going to use". But I
imagine LISP users might say "I wouldn't want to have to keep defining
basic operators that Scheme removed from LISP". Is it a personal thing
or is there a clear advantage to having a smaller namespace?
Thanks.
- Mark
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
