Re: Roadmap to lily code
Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have a rather old fashioned feel and while useful aren't particularly interesting. That's an interesting observation, given that LISP is probably older than all of the languages you mention :) -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linewidth
Hi, gacl (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: Hi, First of all, thanks to the developers for providing this great piece of software. Now, I've searched this forum, Google, the documentation, etc, and I have not found any answers to this questions: First, how can I put a double bar ( /"||"/ ) at the beginning of my score? Check out the regression test example system-start-heavy-bar.ly for the 2.7 series. Second, how can I set the linewidth for only the last line? I tried /raggedlast/ but it looks ugly. Can I use percentages? That's currently not possible, but I can add it as a sponsored feature. It would take the form of a Scheme level hook to define arbitrary linewidth configurations (analogous to \parshape in TeX), and an example Scheme hook that will allow you to set the linewidth of the last line separately. I've added it to the sponsored-features page for 130 eur. -- Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen LilyPond Software Design -- Code for Music Notation http://www.lilypond-design.com ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Roadmap to lily code
Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have a rather old fashioned feel and while useful aren't particularly interesting. That's an interesting observation, given that LISP is probably older than all of the languages you mention :) Fortran was invented in 1954. The implementation of LISP began in Fall 1958. Paul Scott ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Roadmap to lily code
On 1/1/06, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > > > Art Hixson wrote: > > > >> Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of > >> Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, > >> Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as > >> its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have a rather old > >> fashioned feel and while useful aren't particularly interesting. > > > > > > That's an interesting observation, given that LISP is probably older > > than all of the languages you mention :) > > Fortran was invented in 1954. The implementation of LISP began in Fall > 1958. I'm sure this will send this thread way off topic, but what a better way to ring in the new year, right? ... I programmed in C professionally for years before I realized what a hideous the language was for anything I really wanted to do at home (compose, mostly). I just never questioned the choice; in high school we were taught first Pascal, then C, and then later Java. In fact, I distinctly remember being told as a 15 year-old kid that, essentially, "interpreted languages are too slow (or even too simple-minded) to be of any use to anyone other than academics; *real* code gets written in a *real* language, which means there's a compiler back there somewhere." I'm not making any of this up; I'm repeating from high school computer sciences almost verbatim ... and since I frankly wasn't very interested in my computer science classes at the time (and certainly didn't see myself working in tech later in life) I accepted blindly. And so did almost everybody else. Well time passes, and eventually I started slowly making the switch to interpreted, *functional* langauges ... python first, then Mathematica's core language, and Scheme (partially because of Lily, of course). And I've never been more productive in front of a computer. For loops suck; counter variables suck; temporary variable suck; none of those things are necessary ... at least for me in the way that I like to think about symbolic expressions and symbolic transformations. That's what mappings and some version of lambda are for. I know not everyone agrees, of course, (which is why python has list comprehensions, map ( ) *and* for loops), but the switch to an interpreted-functional paradigm has been a major enabler for me, and I wish more programmers in the humanities out there --- even beginning programmers -- knew this. All of which brings up the following point: if, as Han-Wen (and others) have pointed out a number of times on the list, LISP was around almost from the beginning, then why was it that so much of the world's computing infrastructure got built in Fortran, Cobol and C and that, later, sitting in computer science classrooms in the 1990s I (and probably a whole generation of other American high school students ... dunno about Europe or Canada or Japan) was lead directly away from the functional-interpreted paradigm and directly towards the compiled, C paradigm? One answer must have to do with our teachers: they knew Pascal and C but they didn't know Scheme, Haskell or ML as anything other than an academic curiosity. And another answer is probably the reputation that interpreted languages had (still have?) for being slow.And almost certainly, still another answer is the fact that UNIX "won" at a very early ... and C was most definitely more "the language of UNIX" than was any LISP variant. But whatever the reasons, I'm genuinely disappointed that compiled languages have held the position they've held in at least my experience with the teaching of languages in high school and undergrad. It seems like somewhere along the line someone might try saying to our students "if you're planning on doing anything symbolic, might I suggest that you look towards LISP.". ;-) -- Trevor Bača [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Changing polyphonic per-voice rest position
Hello! I'm trying to typeset a piece of polyphonic keyboard music by the English composer John Bull with version 2.4 and 2.6 (two different platforms), and I've noticed the positioning of the rests doesn't look too good. I understand that you can place a rest using a note followed by \rest, but for much of the score the register of the "sooprano" part is rather low, and the default rest position for that voice seems to be at the very top or even above the clef. Would it be possible to say "Please use the following default vertical positions for rests for the moment" in the score, to save having to place rests explicity the whole time? I've read the manual and as far as I can understand it, it might be possible to set staff-position of Rest somehow, but as to how to achieve this per-voice, I'm very much out of my depth I'm afraid. Any help very much appreciated. Nick ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: Roadmap to lily code
Trevor Bača wrote: On 1/1/06, Paul Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: Art Hixson wrote: Over the years I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of Fortran, Cobol, assembly for a variety of machines, Forth, Rexx, Modula, Python. While Modula is syntactically perfect and Python, as its descendant, is pretty nearly so, they still have a rather old fashioned feel and while useful aren't particularly interesting. That's an interesting observation, given that LISP is probably older than all of the languages you mention :) Fortran was invented in 1954. The implementation of LISP began in Fall 1958. All of which brings up the following point: if, as Han-Wen (and others) have pointed out a number of times on the list, LISP was around almost from the beginning, then why was it that so much of the world's computing infrastructure got built in Fortran, Cobol and C and that, later, sitting in computer science classrooms in the 1990s I (and probably a whole generation of other American high school students ... dunno about Europe or Canada or Japan) was lead directly away from the functional-interpreted paradigm and directly towards the compiled, C paradigm? Remember, personal computing didn't really exist until the late 1970's. Before that compiled languages made much more sense for efficiency reasons. Until somewhat later it didn't make much sense to teach something that wasn't in widespread use. It was probably another factor that compiled code made the source much less available making ownership of software much more possible. At the time of the Apples and PC's, BASIC, an interpreted language was used and taught extensively and another somewhat interpreted and very interactive "language," Forth was used a lot. When memory became less expensive all the rules changed and people began using programs like spreadsheets and didn't have to program at all. Paul Scott ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
Re: linewidth
Thanks. Gus Sent from the Gnu - Lilypond - User forum at Nabble.com: Re: linewidth ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
