Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 17/06/12 23:12, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to
>>> someone in Europe.
>>> The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what
>>> the
On 17/06/12 23:12, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in Europe.
The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what the recipient
fees are.
According to their website i
Are either Flattr or Bitcoin possible good alternatives?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Christ van Willegen writes:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
> > wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara
> wrote:
> >>> From experience, Pay
Christ van Willegen writes:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to
>>> someone in Europe.
>>> The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know w
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Christ van Willegen
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara
> wrote:
> >> From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in
> Europe.
> >> The currency exchange is
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Janek Warchoł
wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in
>> Europe.
>> The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what the recipient
>>fees are.
>
> Ac
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> From experience, PayPal is very easy to use to send money to someone in
> Europe.
> The currency exchange is automatic, although I don't know what the recipient
>fees are.
According to their website it's between 0 and 4% +0,3$ depending on
On Jun 17, 2012, at 4:04 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
>> It'd be nice if someone else (i.e., not me) figured out a user-friendly way
>> for people
>> to donate money to the Lilypond devs without having the entire donation
>> eaten up
>> i
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:47 PM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> It'd be nice if someone else (i.e., not me) figured out a user-friendly way
> for people
> to donate money to the Lilypond devs without having the entire donation eaten
> up
> in the fees accrued from time spent trying to interact with th
Jonathan Wilkes writes:
>> Message: 2
>
> Ok, so the messages I've taken away so far are, "Lilypond Website
> Commercialism Danger! Battlestations", and, "You can already sneak
> into my room and leave money in my sock drawer, why do I need to draw
> you a website?"
Frankly, you already _have_
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 20:33:47 +0200
> From: David Kastrup
> To: Janek Warcho?
> Cc: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
> Message-ID: <87hauty35g@fencepost.gnu.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ut
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Helge Kruse wrote:
> Am 12.06.2012 19:48, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>> ...but without \\. You don't want to have \music typeset as first
>> voice (upstemmed).
>
>
> Nope, as you can see I changed the music definition so that you get both
> notes with up stem and down
Am 12.06.2012 19:48, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
form = {
\repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
}
music = {
\repeat unfold 64 a'4
}
<<\music \form>>
Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like this:
music = \relative c'' {
\repeat unfold 8 { a4 b c d e d c b }
}
<< \oneVoice
On 12/06/12 07:30, Janek Warchoł wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
that would be huge.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Helge Kruse wrote:
> Am 12.06.2012 08:57, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
>
>> form = {
>> \repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
>> }
>>
>> music = {
>> \repeat unfold 64 a'4
>> }
>>
>> << \music \form>>
>
>
> Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard skeleton
> for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
>
> \version information
>
> \paper information
>
> \form information (number of bars, repeat locations, bars-per-line, rehearsal
> mark locat
Am 12.06.2012 08:57, schrieb m...@apollinemike.com:
form = {
\repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
}
music = {
\repeat unfold 64 a'4
}
<< \music \form>>
Actually this doesn't work. You will need something like this:
music = \relative c'' {
\repeat unfold 8 { a4 b c d e d c b }
}
<< \one
- Original Message -
> From: Francisco Vila
> To: Jonathan Wilkes
> Cc: "lilypond-user@gnu.org"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 4:26 AM
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
>
> 2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes :
>> I think if Lilypondt
On Jun 12, 2012, at 1:15 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
>> I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
>> skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
>>
>> \version information
>>
>> \paper information
>>
>> \form information (number of bars, repeat location
On Jun 12, 2012, at 1:28 AM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I am the
>> first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of Lilypond makes little
>> sense except perhaps to people
2012/6/12 Janek Warchoł :
>>
>> LilyPondTool already does this.
>
> wow!
It's called the ruler tool and it allows this:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-user/2010-02/msg00150.html
The code won't work unmodified on current LP but you get the idea.
--
Francisco Vila. Badajoz (Spain)
www.
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:03:53PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Janek Warchoł writes:
> >
> >> David Nalesnik already did this:
> >> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=838
> >>
> >>> I think the issue at this point is not LilyPond's
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 9:35 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Janek Warchoł writes:
>
>> David Nalesnik already did this:
>> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=838
>>
>>> I think the issue at this point is not LilyPond's lack of ability to
>>> do this or that,
>>> but rather the lack of a vibrant
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes :
>> I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
>> click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
>> preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
>> that would be huge.
Colin Hall writes:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
>> >> of simp
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:45:24PM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> >> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
> >> of simplification and usability (the syn
2012/6/12 Jonathan Wilkes :
> I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
>
> click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
>
> preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
>
> that would be huge.
LilyPondTool already does this.
--
Francisco Vila. Bad
Janek Warchoł writes:
> David Nalesnik already did this:
> http://lsr.dsi.unimi.it/LSR/Item?u=1&id=838
>
>> I think the issue at this point is not LilyPond's lack of ability to
>> do this or that,
>> but rather the lack of a vibrant cookbook culture like Python has.
>
> I think you're right.
It
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:57 AM, m...@apollinemike.com
wrote:
> Couldn't agree more - LilyPond already has all of this. Every score I've
> created since 2008 does this in some way or another. Four bars per system in
> simple music? No problem.
>
> form = {
> \repeat unfold 4 { s1*4 \break }
On 12 juin 2012, at 08:35, Josiah Boothby wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:22:55 -0500
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
>> skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
>>
>> \version information
>>
>> \paper informa
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:22:55 -0500
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
> skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
>
> \version information
>
> \paper information
>
> \form information (number of bars, repeat locations,
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> I think if Lilypondtool or Frescobaldi would allow you to
> click-drag some of the grobs like dynamics and markup in the
> preview pdf and automatically insert code to make the tweak,
> that would be huge.
+1
Wilbert (author of Frescobaldi
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> Let me respond as a musician rather than as a programmer, because I am the
> first and I am not the second. A lot of the syntax of Lilypond makes little
> sense except perhaps to people used to coding. If you're a musician, the
> first mo
> I think that this could simplify the syntax by creating a standard
> skeleton for .ly files going from most global to most specific:
>
> \version information
>
> \paper information
>
> \form information (number of bars, repeat locations, bars-per-line,
> rehearsal mark locations, number of sta
Ivan Kuznetsov writes:
> Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
> music notation likewise has to be complex.
Music consists of many notes and parts. Any music instrument likewise
has to consist of many notes and parts. For example, you can play
several dozens of different note
On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:22:55AM -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal
> > of features.
>
> With all due respect, that is IMHO incorrect. Lilypond's syntax
> could be simplified through pursu
>Message: 7
>Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 21:21:08 -0500
>From: Ivan Kuznetsov
>To: Tim McNamara
>Cc: lilypond-user Users
>Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
>Message-ID:
>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Music notation is complex. A
On Jun 11, 2012, at 9:21 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
> Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
> music notation likewise has to be complex.
Hmm, it would be more accurate to say "music notation *can* be complex." It
can also be very simple. I use Lilypond for creating jazz lead sh
Tim McNamara writes:
Why is it like this? Because the focus of Lilypond has been, to
a great degree, to create something that enables users to
produce beautiful sheet music. That is the raison d'être of
Lilypond. The main focus has not been on user friendliness and
easy useability. As a
Hi TIm,
I agree with much of what you said. However
> It is not all that easy to make Lilypond to do things like setting four bars
> to the line (something jazz musicians tend to like).
That's pretty darned simple now — check the archives for more details.
=)
Cheers,
Kieren.
__
Music notation is complex. Any ASCII representation of
music notation likewise has to be complex.
Any simplification of lilypond syntax must mean a removal
of features.
The only other alternative is to use a WYSIWYG
editor where you "draw" the musical notation you
want, and good luck waiting for
On Jun 10, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Ivan Kuznetsov wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
>> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
>> dramatically; a lot of the code users have
> Can anyone recommend a book or website for learning Scheme as it
> currently exists in Lilypond? So that I won’t start using deprecated
> features or whatever. I’m fluent in Lua (which I like a lot).
I found Kent Dybvig's book to be useful and readable: http://scheme.com/tspl4/.
"Scheme as it c
Ivan Kuznetsov writes:
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
>> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
>> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly
>>
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Tim McNamara wrote:
> As great as Lilypond's output is, there is a long way to go in terms
> of simplification and usability (the syntax needs to be simplified
> dramatically; a lot of the code users have to write is pretty ugly
> and is going to scare off potent
Am 2012-06-10 um 11:58 schrieb David Kastrup:
Henning Hraban Ramm writes:
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
The architecture of LilyPond needs work to
On 10/06/12 08:14, David Kastrup wrote:
The discussion is not useful. It distracts from work needing to get
done, without offering perspectives that are actually feasible since
they are neither thought through nor have the resources for tackling
them _if_ they made sense and were planned out.
Henning Hraban Ramm writes:
> Please. Stop.
>
> This discussion is going nowhere.
> And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
> than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Actually, I am not as much discussing ideal worlds rather than the
misconception that
Please. Stop.
This discussion is going nowhere.
And David can use his badly-paid time better for enhancing LilyPond
than for discussing ideal worlds that never will happen.
Whoever believes to know better than our currently most active
programmer should come up with some useful code.
Gr
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
>> You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
>> repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
>> code, and we were talking about using D as an _extension_ language of
>>
On 07/06/12 05:24, David Kastrup wrote:
You picked a _Scheme_ function, not a music function. That does not, I
repeat _not_ at all show how you embed this thing into your LilyPond
code, and we were talking about using D as an _extension_ language of
LilyPond, not about its usefulness as a genera
On 8 June 2012 07:44, Matthew Collett wrote:
> SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics
> Made Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except that in this case the authors
> are entirely serious.
>
It didn’t seem too scary to me, or at least the start of it...
As far
On 8/06/2012, at 1:54 am, Tim McNamara wrote:
> The first few chapters of SICP would probably be very helpful.
>
> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-10.html
SICP does for computer programming what Linderholm's classic 'Mathematics Made
Difficult' does for arithmetic -- except
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
>> modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
>
> Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand
> this better before reply
On 07/06/12 17:31, David Kastrup wrote:
I think that a larger barrier is actually the use of features like
modules in a non-documented and non-obvious way.
Can you explain this in greater detail? Would be useful to understand this
better before replying to your earlier, longer message on the
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> Well, it's that unfamiliarity that I'm talking about, really. My
> point isn't that Scheme is bad in itself but that using it means that
> virtually _everyone_ wanting to script or work on LilyPond has to
> learn a new language, syntax and set of programming par
On 07/06/12 14:54, Tim McNamara wrote:
Hmm. The way you wrote that, it appears that the fault is not with Scheme but
the with one's unfamiliarity with Scheme. This is certainly *my* problem with
understanding the Scheme-based extensions in Lilypond. And yet when I look at
them I can intuit
On Jun 6, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>
> On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
>> likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
>> choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
>
>
David Kastrup writes:
> So please, try again. This time picking something that actually
> solves a task in LilyPond.
>
> Something like
> Documentation/snippets/adding-extra-fingering-with-scheme.ly (which
> actually does a ridiculous amount using Scheme rather than #{...#} but
> let's just assu
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> Scheme (and all other LISP dialects), Haskell and so on have a starkly
> different notational style and set of programming paradigms that make
> them difficult to adapt to from current mainstream programming
> approaches. That puts a barrier in the way of lots o
On 05/06/12 08:53, David Kastrup wrote:
I would doubt that this would have been the fault of Scheme. More
likely a problem of the Scheme/LilyPond interface choices, but those
choices don't go away when replacing Scheme.
No, it was the fault of the unfamiliar Scheme syntax. A colleague used to
David Kastrup writes:
[...]
Let me summarize the gist of that long reply:
My answer to the question "What do you think of Scheme as LilyPond's
extension language?" would be the same as the famous response to the
question "Mr. Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilization?": "I
think it woul
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
I'm wondering, do you think that learning a new language such as scheme
would scare you away from hacking on LilyPond, if you discovered it?
>>>
>>> As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always g
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> I'm wondering, do you think that learning a new language such as scheme
>>> would scare you away from hacking on LilyPond, if you discovered it?
>>
>> As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
>> perspectives on program
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 05/06/12 06:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
>> perspectives on programming.
>>
>> I, like most people, have only a limited amount of time. Learning a
>> programming language well enough to write co
On 05/06/12 06:10, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
As long as you seek out new technologies, you'll always get new
perspectives on programming.
I, like most people, have only a limited amount of time. Learning a
programming language well enough to write code that sticks to wall
when you throw it, is a s
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
>> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>>
>>> Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
>>> the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
>>> working on it.
>>
>> For me, the c
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 4:50 AM, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
>
>> Let me try to rephrase things: the more functionality is moved into
>> the Scheme layers, the less people you can find who are capable of
>> working on it.
>
> For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplay
Jeff Barnes writes:
> From: Tim Roberts
>> In what way does Qt represent an "extension strategy"?
>
> Using C++ to extend Lily.
C++ is not useful for extending LilyPond. It is its skeleton substance,
but is not user serviceable. Qt would not change that.
> With the benefit that there are rea
> From: Tim Roberts
>
> Jeff Barnes wrote:
>> While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for
> now, there are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing.
>
> That's not entirely clear.
I don't think starting from here is fair, Tim. You didn't quote enough context.
>
Jeff Barnes wrote:
> While I'm sensitive to David's request to end the discussion for now, there
> are some misconceptions about Qt that need addressing.
That's not entirely clear. The discussion was originally about the
choice of Scheme as an extension language. Qt is clearly not an answer
to
> From: Tim McNamara
>
> On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
>>> From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>>>
>>> On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support
> for
things we desperately need: reflection, automatic m
On Jun 4, 2012, at 8:30 AM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
>> From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>>
>> On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
>>> things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
>>> and callbacks.
>>
Jeff Barnes writes:
>> From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>>
>>On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>>> One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
>>> things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
>>> and callbacks.
>>
>>How about D?
>
> Also, c
> From: Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>
>On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
>> things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
>> and callbacks.
>
>How about D?
Also, consider Qt. It has all of the abo
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 03/06/12 17:44, David Kastrup wrote:
>> I don't want to remove "as much C++ as possible". That's about as
>> useful as to remove "as much C as possible" from Emacs. The point is to
>> consider C++ as the building language for primitives, and tie together
>>
On 03/06/12 17:44, David Kastrup wrote:
I don't want to remove "as much C++ as possible". That's about as
useful as to remove "as much C as possible" from Emacs. The point is to
consider C++ as the building language for primitives, and tie together
the primitives in Scheme.
OK, I misinterpret
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 03/06/12 14:17, David Kastrup wrote:
>> How about first getting C++/Scheme right? As I already explained,
>> cleaning up the mess of layers and control flow will
>>
>> a) give a better basis for judging that approach
>> b) make it easier to migrate individual
On 03/06/12 14:17, David Kastrup wrote:
How about first getting C++/Scheme right? As I already explained,
cleaning up the mess of layers and control flow will
a) give a better basis for judging that approach
b) make it easier to migrate individual layers to something else if
desired
Don't
Joseph Rushton Wakeling writes:
> On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
>> things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
>> and callbacks.
>
> How about D?
>
> http://dlang.org/
>
> This seems to m
On 30/05/12 02:12, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
One of the problems of LilyPond is that C++ had very poor support for
things we desperately need: reflection, automatic memory management
and callbacks.
How about D?
http://dlang.org/
This seems to me to be a great choice for much of LP's needs. C/C
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> ok. I think that adding a /small/ donation progress bar in David's
> description wouldn't be a violation of the rules. But i don't insist.
+1. I've been talking for years about a "donation thermometer" like
they have on Blender's homepage,
Janek Warchoł writes:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Graham Percival
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>>> So, apologies - and where can i read detailed policies?
>>
>> Detailed policy is pretty much exactly what is shown on that
>> webpage,
>
> ok. I
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
>> So, apologies - and where can i read detailed policies?
>
> Detailed policy is pretty much exactly what is shown on that
> webpage,
ok. I think that adding a /small/ donatio
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38:24PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> Now i've found
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2011-12/msg00124.html
> and it looks like the discussion happened when i was absent.
As per GOP 6, it was a private email discussion so no archives are
available.
>
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:30:01AM +0200, Francisco Vila wrote:
> 2012/6/1 Graham Percival :
> > And lilynet is a good place for "experimental" / "unofficial" stuff.
>
> Well, http://wiki.lilynet.net/index.php/Special:RecentChanges
-snip problems-
> I am sorry, I don't really want to be unconstr
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Graham Percival
wrote:
> But can we stop arguing about commercializing lilypond.org? As a
> result of a fair amount of arguments, we have a sponsorship page.
> Do you really want to re-open that debate? after only a few
> months? I'm pretty sick of that topic.
2012/6/1 Graham Percival :
> And lilynet is a good place for "experimental" / "unofficial" stuff.
Well, http://wiki.lilynet.net/index.php/Special:RecentChanges
There are four main links in http://lilynet.net .
The frog forum does not exist as linked there.
The wiki... you know.
The chat: I can't
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 11:05:02PM +0200, Janek Warchoł wrote:
> David's right. However, i think it would be ok to add a "monthly
> donations progress bar" on the sponsoring subpage
> (http://www.lilypond.org/sponsoring.html), under David's name.
> What do you think? To me this would be more like
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:19 PM, David Kastrup wrote:
> Anyway, I am _one_ developer of several, and it would be inappropriate
> to turn the LilyPond website into a personal payment collector for
> myself. And Paul Davis runs a decidedly larger part (and also has
> larger responsibilities) with t
Jonathan Wilkes writes:
> You should have a look at the website for Ardour if you haven't
> already. Paul has a little bar that fills up toward a monthly total,
> and has an easy donation method that is highly visible. You might
> also want to get in touch with him to get some details on how th
Francisco Vila writes:
> 2012/6/1 Jan Nieuwenhuizen :
>> For me, the complexity of LilyPond itself outplays learning a new
>> programming language by far.
>
> In other words, saying "Who's going to learn LilyPond? Nobody will!"
> is more or less the same as saying "Who is going to learn Scheme to
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:18:58 +0200
> From: David Kastrup
> To: lilypond-user@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Appreciation / Financial support
> Message-ID: <87bol3osql@fencepost.gnu.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>
> Tim Robert
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Jeff Barnes wrote:
> It sounds like it would be quite valuable to know the commonalities of this
> very very small very small group for positioning Lily and for future
> development direction.
Have you read my articles in The LilyPond Report #25, in particular
th
Hi Nils (et al.),
> Authors may write in Microsoft Word and Comic Sans, they can give it to their
> publisher who then can use whatever they need, with a pro-grade typographer
> person, to create the real deal. The content stays, the format gets better.
> Similar situation with music notation.
Tim Roberts writes:
> Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>>> Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
>>> LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
>>> writing music rather than listening to it.
>> In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [ve
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 19:02:02 +0200
David Kastrup wrote:
> Kieren MacMillan writes:
>
> > Hi David,
> >
> >> Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
> >> LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
> >> writing music rather than listening
> From: Kieren MacMillan
>
>Hi David,
>
>> Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
>> LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
>> writing music rather than listening to it.
>
>In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very
Kieren MacMillan writes:
> Hi David,
>
>> Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
>> LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
>> writing music rather than listening to it.
>
> In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very
Kieren MacMillan wrote:
>> Who is going to learn reading notes, let alone writing them? Of course
>> LilyPond is only for geeks, because it is just geeks who bother with
>> writing music rather than listening to it.
> In other words, composers who use Lilypond are a [very, very small] subset of
>
1 - 100 of 168 matches
Mail list logo
