Hi all, >> we should also work on good interfaces for >> tweaking the engraving *and* on interfaces to separate content and >> design. In my former answer to Urs' post, I talked about the engraver I >> use. Here's the idea behind it again: >> - I have my music stored, to recall it when I actually engrave it. >> - I want to be able to say: Modify item x in measure n on moment m with >> modification (override) d
Yes. This. > In what way do you consider it experimental? Put a different way, why can’t I use it right now? I’ve got many, many [very large] projects where this would be so helpful to me. > If you are creating performance material which even has to be flexibly > re-formatted you can't and don't need to have the same demands as when you > publish a printed score. To some degree… but it would be wonderful to improve the **expectations** of flexibly-reformattable performance materials to approximate the **demands** of a printed score. > And exactly for this an approach like your edition engraver could be very > useful. > a) don't stop improving LilyPond to reduce the amount of necessary tweaks > b) write clean input files > c) hope they are sufficient for 'flexible' and 'perform only' use cases > d) store tweaks for a paper publication in a separate file. +1^100000000 I know… that’s still 1. ;) Kieren. _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
