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
11 matches
Mail list logo
