Jeff Barnes <jbarnes...@yahoo.com> writes: > From: Tim Roberts
>> In what way does Qt represent an "extension strategy"? > > Using C++ to extend Lily. C++ is not useful for extending LilyPond. It is its skeleton substance, but is not user serviceable. Qt would not change that. > With the benefit that there are readily available language bindings to > popular languages. There seems little point in using Qt for accessing the popular languages. >> However, this debate is now taking a nasty side-trip into religion, >> and that isn't going to help anyone. > > It was not my intent to get religious. Please show me where I was > religious about Qt and I will gladly recant. Religion is about belief. Port some significant subsystem of LilyPond to your idea of Qt usage, and you have actual substance to talk about rather than belief. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
