Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]
Am 7. Januar 2020 23:53:42 MEZ schrieb Andrew Bernard : >Hi Malte, > >\shapeII is a function I use heavily - heavily - in all my work. It's >indispensable for me at least. I'm very familiar with OpenLilyLib, and >contribute a bit to it, so it's not an issue for me, but that's a >function that really ought to go into lilypond core in my view. > >As for newbies not using OpenLilyLib, you can't make such as assertion >because you cannot say what their level of experience with computers >and software is, so I don't think that's a pertinent point. > >Perhaps ois the NR had instructions for how to install and use >OpenLilyLib as a powerful addon, then it make have more 'street cred' >and become more widely used in the way it is intended, not just copy >and paste of bits. I do think people see it as far outside Lilypond >and don't want to get involved, somehow. I agree that openLilyLib could be introduced in the documentation or at least on the website. However, I don't think OLL is ready for that. I I wouldn't want it to be officially endorsed as long as it is not at least basically documented. Urs > >Andrew > > >On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 22:34, Malte Meyn wrote: > >> Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn: > >> One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users >might >> not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I >have >> never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the >> definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t >think >> that many newbies will use oll …) >> >> Same argument for \shapeII. >> -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]
Hi Malte, \shapeII is a function I use heavily - heavily - in all my work. It's indispensable for me at least. I'm very familiar with OpenLilyLib, and contribute a bit to it, so it's not an issue for me, but that's a function that really ought to go into lilypond core in my view. As for newbies not using OpenLilyLib, you can't make such as assertion because you cannot say what their level of experience with computers and software is, so I don't think that's a pertinent point. Perhaps ois the NR had instructions for how to install and use OpenLilyLib as a powerful addon, then it make have more 'street cred' and become more widely used in the way it is intended, not just copy and paste of bits. I do think people see it as far outside Lilypond and don't want to get involved, somehow. Andrew On Sat, 4 Jan 2020 at 22:34, Malte Meyn wrote: > Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn: > One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might > not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have > never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the > definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t think > that many newbies will use oll …) > > Same argument for \shapeII. >
Re: move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]
4. Januar 2020 12:34, "Malte Meyn" schrieb: > Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn: > >> But that brings me to another question: Shouldn’t we add the \dynamic > >> command from openlilylib to >> vanilla LilyPond? This would allow users to > have “p dolce”, “più f” and >> ‘exotic’ dynamics like >> “mfz” whithout having > to define extra commands using make-dynamic-script. > > One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might not > want to install > “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have never used openlilylib > apart from copying > definitions from the definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced > user; I don’t think that > many newbies will use oll …) There are good arguments to make openLilyLib more accessible to the general user (at the conference in Salzburg next week discussing the state of this will be part of my agenda). There are significant packages available that can be extremely useful but seem not really suitable to be merged into vanilla LilyPond. OTOH from the many smaller functions scattered over the "snippets" and oll-misc repository many might really be added to the main program. The dynamic functions might be prime candidates for that. That means someone should prepare a documented patch with regtest (if appropriate) and submit it for review. If nobody is willing to invest that amount of time the functions may well stay available in openLilyLib ... > > Same argument for \shapeII. This is definitely something I'd want to see in LilyPond. Maybe it has to be significantly updated by now, and it should *not* have that indexed name. If *replacing* \shape with \shapeII is not an option I'd suggest finding a completely new name. Urs
move some OLL functions to vanilla LilyPond? [was: A suggestion: add \rf to built-in dynamics]
Am 04.01.20 um 12:29 schrieb Malte Meyn: But that brings me to another question: Shouldn’t we add the \dynamic command from openlilylib to vanilla LilyPond? This would allow users to have “p dolce”, “più f” and ‘exotic’ dynamics like “mfz” whithout having to define extra commands using make-dynamic-script. One could argue that openlilylib can be installed easily but users might not want to install “addons” for basic tasks like this. (In fact, I have never used openlilylib apart from copying definitions from the definitions.ily files and I see myself as a advanced user; I don’t think that many newbies will use oll …) Same argument for \shapeII.
