Hi,
> The current examples present the minimum information necessary to demonstrate
> the feature.
> This follows lilypond's approach, which is to invent everything needed that
> you didn't specify, like books, scores, staves, time signatues, clefs,
> barlines, etc.
This *is* a potential frust
> From: Kieren MacMillan
> Subject: Re: Understanding Lilypond
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> > many of us have struggled for many months to get to grips with the
> structure and philosophy of Lilypond.
>
> 1. Regarding the structure, what are you struggling with exactly?
>
&g
Am 17.01.2015 um 17:22 schrieb Kieren MacMillan:
Hi Peter,
I'm not sure that my response is suitable for the list
It *definitely* is!
Please feel free to critisize scorn or otherwise flame.
I’m sorry your default expectation is to be critisized, scorned, or flamed —
that hasn’t been my p
Urs Liska wrote
> Of course, but when you are searching for solutions, approaches or even
> tutorials on "Scheme" you'll get a bunch of different resources, some for
> Racket, some for MIT Scheme, some for guile-1.8, some for guile-2.0 and so
> on. While often there is something to the solution tha
Hi Peter,
> I'm not sure that my response is suitable for the list
It *definitely* is!
> Please feel free to critisize scorn or otherwise flame.
I’m sorry your default expectation is to be critisized, scorned, or flamed —
that hasn’t been my primary experience on this list (as a newbie more th
Am Samstag, 17. Januar 2015 14:13 CET, Richard Shann
schrieb:
> actually, Scheme syntax is incredibly simple - Scheme expressions are
> lists (a b c) with the first element being the procedure and the
> subsequent ones the parameters. So if you come across (if a b) you look
> up the procedu
Am 17.01.2015 um 14:13 schrieb Richard Shann:
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 13:37 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
Concretely I see the problem in a sequence of related issues:
- Scheme itself *is* difficult to get into
actually, Scheme syntax is incredibly simple - Scheme expressions are
lists (a b c) with t
On Sat, 2015-01-17 at 13:37 +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
> Concretely I see the problem in a sequence of related issues:
>
> - Scheme itself *is* difficult to get into
actually, Scheme syntax is incredibly simple - Scheme expressions are
lists (a b c) with the first element being the procedure and the
way to interact with LilyPond through Scheme is quite obscure
(and that's where better documentation would be needed most IMO)
Urs
-Original Message-
From: Kieren MacMillan [mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 9:40 PM
To: Peter Gentry
Cc: Lilypond-Us
sts to reduce the feeling of
being lost in a sea of hieroglyphs.
>-Original Message-
>From: Kieren MacMillan [mailto:kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca]
>Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 9:40 PM
>To: Peter Gentry
>Cc: Lilypond-User Mailing List
>Subject: Re: Understanding
Dear David,
as a small addition and a partly similar answer to Urs’, I think the point is:
LilyPond tries to suggest (or even enforce as a default) conventions of classic
music notation. This comprises for example that clefs are repeated for each line
but the time signature isn’t.
In your case, t
Hi Peter,
> many of us have struggled for many months to get to grips with the structure
> and philosophy of Lilypond.
1. Regarding the structure, what are you struggling with exactly?
2. Regarding the philosophy, what are you struggling with exactly?
Hope I can help!
Kieren.
>Just let me repeat something I wrote a number of times here.
>If you manage to understand something with the help of this
>list that you think could be a not-so-uncommon issue for many
>please consider sharing your experience with a (little or big)
>tutorial, for which we have always "free sp
lilypond-user/attachments/20
150116/0f65abad/attachment.html>
--
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:28:52 +0100
From: Urs Liska
To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Understanding Lilypond
Message-ID: <54b91214.40...@openlilylib.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
t;> > ___
>>> > lilypond-user mailing list
>>> > [hidden email]
>>> > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
>>> >
>>
>> ___
&
Am 16.01.2015 um 13:35 schrieb David Sumbler:
As I start to gain experience in setting music in Lilypond I am trying
to understand more about how it works internally. As well as personal
satisfaction, this obviously has a practical aim: it will make it easier
for me to modify or correct things
Harald Christiansen wrote
> For example you say
> "Because \layout { ... } is not a music expression but rather an output
> definition. Different type. "
>
> and then later on:
>
> "There are no typed variables."
>
> In my mind these two do not work together ... for me there is some
> understand
Hello David,
Many thanks for your reply. :-)
I was giving the variable example as a kind of difficulty I have. I
appreciate the "fish" you are giving to me but I want to learn "how to
fish" :-)
For example you say
"Because \layout { ... } is not a music expression but rather an output
definitio
Harald Christiansen writes:
> Hello,
>
> Is there a manual for the lilypond language itself ?
>
> I don't get it ... is it a programming language ... a macro expander ...
> all of the above ?
It is a dynamically typed language. Not much programming in the
language itself, but a Scheme layer cat
19 matches
Mail list logo
