Stjepan Horvat <zvanste...@gmail.com> writes: > I did not mean to criticize anyone but to learn how to use the > software completely. And that was my fault as I did not watch which > documentation I read, ie the version. I'm sorry.
I was no annoyed at you making a mistake, but rather that Peter used that in order to paint a bleak general picture of LilyPond. You actually have managed to get pretty far considering the discrepancy between documentation and actually used version. And if you scour the developer mailing lists around the time of 2.12 you'll likely find a lot of choice words of mine about the state of the documentation even at a time when it still _did_ correspond with the current version. And that version was so awfully inconsistent that it turned out easier to first bring it into a state where you'd not have to wash out your hands with soap after writing documentation for it. Actually, you might want to look at <URL:http://news.lilynet.net/?The-LilyPond-Report-23#feature_story_prelude_1_in_scheme> which I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. And compare the approach there to the older, 2.12 style version of it that Nicolas Sceaux has on his website. > I think lilypond has a great community and i did't have to wait more > that 12h to get at least a response. Well, I definitely proud myself on facilitating one of the fastest PTF times for active projects (PTF = posting to flamewar). > This is very fast in my opinion. Yes. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
