> [...] getting string dimensions from TeX as an idea is something
> that is best avoided IMO. However, I suppose it's unavoidable for
> complex scripts, though.
I believe the same. Maybe some guy needs complex mathematical
formulae combined with a music example...
Werner
__
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > This approach seems rather arcane to me.
>
> `Arcane'? Please explain. Any better idea to get string dimensions
> from TeX currently?
No, but getting string dimensions from TeX as an idea is something
that is best avoided IMO. However, I suppose it's unavoidable fo
> > lilypond --generate-latex-data foo.ly > foo.tex
> > latex foo.tex
> > lilypond --use-latex-data foo.ly
>
> This approach seems rather arcane to me.
`Arcane'? Please explain. Any better idea to get string dimensions
from TeX currently?
> However, with Scheme functions, you can already
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > doesn't do print. I'm not sure where Omega is standing, last time I
> > looked, development wasn't moving much.
>
> You want to send LaTeX code to a library and getting back small EPS
> files? This is non-trivial due to the embedded fonts. IMHO the
No, I want to s
> > How will you handle arbitrary text strings too complex to be
> > handled by lilypond itself (exotic scripts, mathematics, etc.)?
>
> We'll leave the TeX output intact, but users will have to write
> their own glue/titling code (or use lilypond-book).
>
> In a far future, I hope that we can li
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > The goal is to replace the current lilypond.py script with directly
> > generated postscript and PDF output. This is a cleaner approach
> > than the current keyhole manoeuvring, where the final PDF is put
> > together from a complex mix of PostScript and Latex, and
