> Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:03:10 +0200 > From: David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> > To: lilypond-user@gnu.org > Subject: Re: Scheme syntax vs. other languages > Message-ID: <8762b0ta75....@fencepost.gnu.org> > Content-Type: text/plain > > Jonathan Wilkes <jancs...@yahoo.com> writes: > >> This doesn't go at all toward one solution or the other, but it does >> strongly point to this being a dev issue and not a user issue. > > It depends on whether you consider the distinction between "dev" and > "user" to be branded on people's foreheads. Then you can state > things > like "to extend, you should be able to recompile", but even with the > most caste-conscious division between devs and users, this does not work > as a community concept: because then the devs will not be able to help > individual users with code snippets, when the latter can't compile them. > > In LilyPond, the Scheme reader and interpreter is just a # away. The > line between LilyPond users and people extending LilyPond with Scheme is > much more fuzzy and gradual than the line between those extending > LilyPond with Scheme and those doing it with C++. > > Most of the proposals about juggling extension languages are focusing on > the C++/Scheme border. That's not the important one for the community > aspect. At least not its details, but rather how far away from the user > you can push it by extending the reach of Scheme. The important border > is that between LilyPond and Scheme. Here is where empowerment of the > user happens. Or not.
Can you explain a little about how that empowerment happens? _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
