James E. Bailey wrote: > Surely the calculations can be performed outside of lilypond, > and then simply input into lilypond for a score, right? Or am I > missing something?
Sure, but scheme can greatly facilitate things. I should clarify that algorithmic music hardly represents the bulk of my LilyPond work, but I mentioned it as an example of something the benefits from scheme. I'll try to respond differently to what you wrote earlier: > Scheme is, as far as I'm concerned, what other people do to save > typing. In fact, I'm of the opinion that there's no need to use > Scheme, it's just there if you know how to use it. So, if you > take Scheme out of the lilypond learning curve, it's actually > not that difficult. I think what David was saying in his earlier post (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2009-08/msg00323.html) was that he's gotten to the level where he needs scheme to do what he wants. As one example, if you need your slurs and ties to hide behind time-signatures, scheme is absolutely required, as far as I see it:http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?id=613 Scheme enables far more functionality than simply saving typing. So if you find yourself needing scheme in LilyPond, you may very well find yourself fighting its counterintuitive elements. Certainly scheme isn't "required" to produce beautiful scores, but I typeset a lot of contemporary music, and the demands of the new notation are simply too great to avoid it. So, as I said, perhaps it just depends on your typesetting needs. - Mark _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
