> In short, LilyPond's time-keeping system is something of a
> miracle. Why? Because all of these things (and many others besides)
> work *semantically*. Compare this with layers of kludge necessary
> to make barline-crossing durations work in Finale or Sibelius.
>
> FWIW I've always suspected that the reason that LilyPond gets the
> western time-keeping model right where Finale / Sibelius struggle
> has to do with the concept of the measure: the object models of both
> Finale and Sibelius seem *to start at the measure* (and then work
> down to tuplets, notes, rests and chords and then work up to voices,
> staves and scores). But in LilyPond this isn't the case: the concept
> of the measure is much less central to the way that users work with
> LilyPond and the out-of-the-box correctness of these more bizarre
> elements of the rhythmic system would seem to be a happy byproduct
> of that.
Something like that should be added to the PRAISE section :-)
Werner
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
lilypond-user@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
