Am 06.02.2017 um 20:15 schrieb "Jürgen Reuter":
> Hi all,
>
> personally, I think, it is as always in software development that
> addresses a wide audience: the challenge to find an appropriate level
> of abstraction.
> If you want to support *any* kind of notation, then just use a
> painting o
Am 6. Februar 2017 20:34:36 MEZ schrieb Simon Albrecht :
>On 06.02.2017 20:15, "Jürgen Reuter" wrote:
>> Another thing, I guess, is making it easy for musicians without
>> programming knowledge to smoothly embed their own articulation signs,
>> note heads, clefs, and other font symbols into LilyP
On 06.02.2017 20:15, "Jürgen Reuter" wrote:
Another thing, I guess, is making it easy for musicians without
programming knowledge to smoothly embed their own articulation signs,
note heads, clefs, and other font symbols into LilyPond at runtime:
Just define a new articulation sign or note head sh
Hi all,
personally, I think, it is as always in software development that
addresses a wide audience: the challenge to find an appropriate level
of abstraction.
If you want to support *any* kind of notation, then just use a painting
or CAD software. Obviously, you do not want to
OK, I think we have to take care that the discussion doesn't get out of
hand now but stays closely on topic (the GSoC project).
It is clear that *comprehensive* coverage of "contemporary notation" is
not a goal that LilyPond should or can aim at, at least for now.
What we *can* aim at is a founda
> What I would
> suggest a GSoC project should produce in addition is *one* coherent set
> of notation features, like (just wild guesses) "Lachenmann style string
> notation" or "a comprehensive set of weirdly drawn line spanners" or
> "just intonation" or whatever - I would leave that as open as p
Sorry, I responded to David before reading your response, but I see
that we kind of said the same things.
> Indeed this should be discussed thoroughly before actually investing
> substantial energy in implementation. But for now I'd defer this to a moment
> if there should be a student interested
> Man, that sounds to me like making explosives available to as many users
> as possible. I mean, I recognize that there is a need apparently to be
> served, but this rather sounds like a call to expanding that need.
Hm, no. There is an absurd amount of weird *needs* from composers
nowadays who a
Am 06.02.2017 um 15:10 schrieb Jeffery Shivers:
> I've thought about this a lot, and I agree that OLL would be the
> obvious means to implement a *contemporary notation* package with
> LilyPond.
>
> A huge problem we will face with doing this, which will always be a
> problem no matter how access
Jeffery Shivers writes:
> I've thought about this a lot, and I agree that OLL would be the
> obvious means to implement a *contemporary notation* package with
> LilyPond.
>
> A huge problem we will face with doing this, which will always be a
> problem no matter how accessible/robust the library,
I've thought about this a lot, and I agree that OLL would be the
obvious means to implement a *contemporary notation* package with
LilyPond.
A huge problem we will face with doing this, which will always be a
problem no matter how accessible/robust the library, is that there
will very often be som
One thing I'm missing about our projects list is actual *notation*
projects. Currently (i.e. when the current wave of purges has been
completed) there is no project that adds to or improves LilyPond's
notation. All projects are important items, but maybe this isn't really
attractive to students.
I
12 matches
Mail list logo
