In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Han-Wen Nienhuys
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
As for the more difficult things ; they are -as said- more
difficult. IMO, the proper attitude is to be glad that more difficult
hacks are possible, and accept that automatic language conversion can
not always deal with th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I also think that we've finished dealing with any squabbles
> we don't want to make public, so this discussion should be
> moved to lilypond-devel.
[done]
> > If you want LilyPond to be used for archival purposes, we must find a
> > way to offer stable syntax. So, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > The syntax of basic music input hasn't changed appreciably since
> > lilypond-2.0. For the future, we have plans to build a GNOME-based GUI
> > for tweaking, which completely separates out tweaks into different
> > files. I don't really see what else we can do.
>
>
On Friday 17 December 2004 01.08, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > The syntax of basic music input hasn't changed appreciably since
> > > lilypond-2.0. For the future, we have plans to build a GNOME-based GUI
> > > for tweaking, which completely separates out tweaks into di
On Thursday 16 December 2004 22.30, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > This point is probably obvious to programmers, but since my complaint
> > started this, I'd like to make sure it's clear: what's really required
> > is
> > a computer-upgradable syntax, not a stable syntax.
