On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> I don't think this discussion is appropriate for bug-lilypond.
> Please follow up on -devel.
Sorry! I meant to post to -devel, don't know why it ended up in bug-. My bad.
Janek
___
bug-lilypond
I don't think this discussion is appropriate for bug-lilypond.
Please follow up on -devel.
- Graham
___
bug-lilypond mailing list
bug-lilypond@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-lilypond
David Kastrup writes:
> Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
>
>> Has anyone ever actually engaged with any major publishers to identify
>> the factors that are of interest to them in engraving software, and
>> the features that Lilypond would have to implement in order to meet
>> their requirements?
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> Has anyone ever actually engaged with any major publishers to identify
> the factors that are of interest to them in engraving software, and
> the features that Lilypond would have to implement in order to meet
> their requirements?
Judging from my experience in
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
[1] Note, however, that ANY change, even a very small, subtle change, is a
really grave argument for a music publisher against using lilypond.
I wrote a huge piece (~95 pages full score, 23 orchestra instruments, choir,
etc) a few years
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> His very point is that deprecated syntax must either cause a warning
>> or an error *by running LilyPond itself*. I fully second that, and it
>> would be a valuable task to check that for the transition from versio
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
> wrote:
>> [1] Note, however, that ANY change, even a very small, subtle change, is a
>> really grave argument for a music publisher against using lilypond.
>> I wrote a huge piece (~95 pages full score, 23 orchestra in
>> Interesting. I've never seen that before, I believe. Can you give
>> a link to an image?
>
> Attached.
Thanks. Indeed, I've never seen it before :-)
> What i think of is a general way of attaching objects to another
> objects. For example '&' would attach objects:
>
> \arpeggio&\<
>
> m
>> At that time, I really, really, really cursed lilypond and its
>> frequent syntax changes.
>
> I think that's Graham's point: syntax changes are bad, so if we have
> to make them (and apparently we still have to), let's do it once and
> for all. Or at most 1-2 times per decade.
I think that R
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:15 AM, Reinhold Kainhofer
wrote:
> [1] Note, however, that ANY change, even a very small, subtle change, is a
> really grave argument for a music publisher against using lilypond.
> I wrote a huge piece (~95 pages full score, 23 orchestra instruments, choir,
> etc) a few
10 matches
Mail list logo
