SoundsFromSound <soundsfromso...@gmail.com> writes: > Interesting. > > David, in your opinion, would a solid background in LATEX really > increase the options (and power) for the LilyPond user?
No. It will make it easier to get into the way of thinking. So would a serious PhD in old languages and philosophy, "serious" implying sufficient for scientific work rather than rote learning, including good translation skills in classical Greek (or should I say "puzzle-solving" skills?) and mastery of formal logic. Philosophy is one of those areas where it is much easier to get even an advanced degree than be competent enough to make an actual difference in the field on any scale. But I digress. > As a composer, I'm always looking for ways to maximize the efficiency > of my notation process. I know basic LATEX, and basic SCHEME / > Python, so I'm curious, what do you suggest for getting the most out > of LilyPond? LaTeX comes in handy in connection with LilyPond-book, but while this is a nice combination, the parts are still separate with regard to the required knowledge. > Where should the focus really be on, if you were me? > > Mastering LATEX? Scheme? Lisp? C++ lol? :) Scheme in the context give by LilyPond and GUILE. I don't think that learning it separately will be all that productive, like learning Common Lisp is nice but not immediately helpful for working with Emacs. However, if you want to change LilyPond, learning about GUILE/Scheme outside of LilyPond might extend your horizons and make you realize how you might want to see things done differently or Scheme-accessible in LilyPond. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
